SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home WSJ Declares “Liar” Out Of Bounds

PLANK OCTOBER 11, 2012

WSJ Declares “Liar” Out Of Bounds

BY TIMOTHY NOAH

Michael Kinsley, the former editor of this magazine, once observed (in Slate) that different presidents embrace different styles of lying. George H.W. Bush’s lying style “derived from his core belief that politics and real life are separate realms. This derived in turn from the cherished preppy-snob distinction between life and games.” Bill Clinton’s lying style was a combination of seduction and athletic challenge (his most famous lie, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” was “a daredevil triple back-flip off the high board”). George W. Bush lied out of laziness. “If telling the truth was less bother,” Kinsley wrote, he’d do that instead. I once argued that Bush’s lies weren’t really lies at all; instead, they conformed to Harry G. Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit (as outlined in his seminal work, On Bullshit). In Frankfurt’s construct, bullshit is actually more dangerous than a lie because a lie, like hypocrisy, is a sort of tribute vice pays to virtue. A lie at least acknowledges, implicitly, that there is this other thing we all agree to be the truth, from which one chooses, for whatever reason, to depart. Bullshit, on the other hand, springs from a conviction that there is no such thing as truth. A “lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are” is, Frankfurt wrote, “the essence of bullshit.”

Obama isn’t much of a liar or bullshitter, a fact that may connect to his weakness in a few other political skills: backslapping, cajoling, bullying, etc. His style of lying is a sort of modest exaggeration. In last week’s presidential debate, for instance, he said he had a plan to cut the budget by $4 trillion, but that included $1 trillion in cuts already achieved during his presidency. Whatever. When it comes to lying, Obama is a bit of an amateur.

If Mitt Romney becomes president, his greatest contribution might be to revive the tradition of baldfaced presidential lying. Indeed, the closer we get to election day, the more astounding the lies become. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the Des Moines Register earlier this week. This lie led to something I don’t recall ever seeing before: A flat-out contradiction from the candidate’s own spokesperson. “Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life,” Andrea Saul e-mailed National Review. TNR’s Amy Sullivan has defined Romney’s lying style as “gaslighting,” a feminist term (derived from the movie Gaslight) to describe the way men maintain power over women by telling them black is white, up is down, etc. That’s very good. Also very good is Peter Coy's observation, in Businessweek, that Romney turned last week's debate into a version of Monty Python's “Argument Clinic” sketch by substituting untruthful contradiction for actual argument.

But I would add that Romney’s lies, increasingly, aspire to be Whitmanesque, as in Walt Whitman’s “Song Of Myself“: ”Do I contradict myself?/ Very well then I contradict myself/ (I am large, I contain multitudes).” Yeah, I’m a liar. So what?

Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.

My evidence is Daniel Henninger’s defense of Romney in the Wall Street Journal ("Obama And The L-Word"), wherein Henninger flat-out says that calling your opponent a liar should be out of bounds in all political discourse:

The Obama campaign’s resurrection of “liar” as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s. It was part of the milieu of stooges, show trials and dupes. These were people willing to say anything to defeat their opposition. Denouncing people as liars was at the center of it. The idea was never to elevate political debate but to debauch it.

Wow. The measure of Romney’s mendacity is his allies’ new argument—not that Romney isn’t an outrageous liar; that ship has sailed—but that politicians should never, ever call each other on it when they’re being, well, liars.  When they do so, they aren’t merely uncivil. They’re fascist. Henninger here updates Epimenides's famous paradox ("All Cretans are liars; I am a Cretan; therefore I am a liar") into the nonsense syllogism, "Stalin was a thug. Stalin called people liars. Therefore anybody who calls anyone a liar is a thug." Or something.

I’d point out that the Journal editorial page had no trouble calling Bill Clinton a liar back in the day—indeed, under a somewhat-unhinged Bob Bartley, published multiple volumes on the Whitewater scandal dedicated to that proposition—but I worry that calling somebody a hypocrite is now also, under the new rules, the rhetorical equivalent of goose-stepping. 

Update: Okay, I can't resist passing along (from Wonkette's Jesse Taylor) that the Journal editpage's James Taranto called Clinton a liar just one month ago! Poor guy, he'll probably get fired for this.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 46 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

46 comments

Scene: Jerry is sitting in his glassed-in salesman's cubicle just off the showroom floor. On the other side of his desk sit an irate customer and his wife. CUSTOMER: We sat here right in this room and went over this and over this! JERRY: Yah, but that TruCoat - CUSTOMER: I sat right here and said I didn't want no TruCoat! JERRY: Yah, but I'm sayin', that TruCoat, you don't get it and you get oxidization problems. It'll cost you a heck of lot more'n five hunnert - CUSTOMER: You're sittin' here, you're talkin' in circles! You're talkin' like we didn't go over this already! JERRY: Yah, but this TruCoat - CUSTOMER: We had us a deal here for nineteen-five. You sat there and darned if you didn't tell me you'd get this car, these options, WITHOUT THE SEALANT, for nineteen-five! JERRY: Okay, I'm not sayin' I didn't - CUSTOMER: You called me twenty minutes ago and said you had it! Ready to make delivery, ya says! Come on down and get it! And here ya are and you're wastin' my time and you're wastin' my wife's time and I'm payin' nineteen-five for this vehicle here! JERRY: Well, okay, I'll talk to my boss... He rises, and, as he leaves: JERRY: ... See, they install that TruCoat at the factory, there's nothin' we can do, but I'll talk to my boss. The couple watch him go to a nearby cubicle. CUSTOMER: These guys here - these guys! It's always the same! It's always more! He's a liar! WIFE: Please, dear. CUSTOMER: We went over this and over this - NEARBY CUBICLE Jerry sits perched on the desk of another salesman who is eating lunch as he watches a hockey game on a small portable TV. JERRY: So you're goin' to the Gophers on Sunday? SALESMAN: You bet. JERRY: You wouldn't have an extra ticket there? SALESMAN: They're playin' the Buckeyes! JERRY: Yah. SALESMAN: Ya kiddin'! JERRY'S CUBICLE Jerry re-enters. JERRY: Well, he never done this before, but seein' as it's special circumstances and all, he says I can knock one hunnert off that TruCoat. CUSTOMER: One hundred! You lied to me, Mr. Lundegaard. You're a bald-faced liar! Jerry sits staring at his lap. CUSTOMER: ... A fucking liar - WIFE: Bucky, please! Jerry mumbles into his lap: JERRY: One hunnert's the best we can do here. CUSTOMER: Oh, for Christ's sake, where's my goddamn checkbook. Let's get this over with.

- Mikelawyr22

October 11, 2012 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I always thought that calling people out as "liars" is not effective because the public perceives it as the lashing out of a cornered animal, rather than the pronouncement of a confident leader -- witness the reaction to Bob Dole's snarl to Clinton to "stop lying about my record". In other words, it's the only thing in politics worse than being wrong -- it's an admission that you are down. It's better to point out your opponent is "misleading" Americans, or is withholding key details, or even to use fancy words that mean "liar" without saying it ("mendacious", "prevaricating"), but not to actually say it. Suprisingly enough, I kind of agree with WSJ on this one -- it's almost as ineffectual as calling your opponent a "fascist", since the reason why you said it will drown out all discussion of the substance of the charge.

- wildboy

October 11, 2012 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with the WSJ. For the sake of civility, all liars should henceforth be referred to as "truth impaired".

- Fishpeddler

October 11, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dole said it about Poppy Bush in 1988, if I am not mistaken - and that, in an interview, not a debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYe-MvAjxLM Which actually makes the whole thing even more poignant - given Bush I's aggressive and unrepentant lying. (Iran-Contra, anyone?) The WSJ has jumped the shark on so many fronts, I don't think it is worth bothering with. At the same time, I don't think Obama should, or even can, call Romney a liar. But it is entirely within bounds to point that nothing Romney says withstands even twelve hours of scrutiny by his own aids and spokespersons.

- icarus-r

October 11, 2012 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't care how you cut it, telling the American People that the British have learned something, as if it were true when the United States knows it is not true, would lead to a conviction in a criminal court on a charge of lying.

- Nusholtz

October 11, 2012 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Weaselly Willard is the perfect leader of a political party that has become ensnared by religion--he's a bishop in a church. The only people who lie more than politicians are religious leaders. W.W. is going to make Tricky Dick look like Honest Abe. Nothing is more fascist than organized religion. God help America.

- magboy47.

October 11, 2012 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not surprising that the Murdoch-owned WSJ would attempt an Orwellian end-run, by forbidding opponents of its truth-challenged candidate to call him "a liar". Even better, being their reason that "it's not civil", and throwing in that Conservative idea that it's "Fascist". It's not the label which is important here. It's the facts and policies on the ground that are important. Is Romney mis-representing himself, going back on policies he's been advocating for 18 months, in order to deceive the public? I think that's pretty clear. Calling him "a liar" is too simple and feeble a label for what he's doing. Bush-II did something similar against Gore in 2000 -- misrepresenting what he'd do with the budget surplus once in office. We're trying to use these debates to choose which man, and which policies, we think would be good for America going forward. That Romney is choosing to mis-characterize his policies at this late date, in an attempt to hood-wink the electorate, needs to be called out. But you do that by pointing out, in HIS words, the contradictions so the people know who they can trust. Calling him "a liar" doesn't do that. Pointing out the contradictions, does.

- AllanL5

October 11, 2012 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No confusion here. One candidate publicly calling another candidate a liar might be overheard at the bridge club or at the pre school. Civility might break down entirely as norms fly out the window. My objection is that Webster's hasn't come out with a dictionary reciting the language a politician must avoid during a campaign.

- Doug12

October 11, 2012 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The WSJ - the paper that thought that Sarah Palin had a point with her "death panel" nonsense is concerned about the debasement of political discourse. President Obama has been called a liar - in the middle of his State of the Union address; a Communist, a Socialist, a fascist, a liar again during the birther nuttery; a Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with being Muslim); and un American . . .need I go on? Perhaps Mitt isn't a liar, let's be charitable and say that he's had so many positions on so many issues that he can't keep track - his 10 positions on abortion are the prime example.

- dubyadoubte

October 11, 2012 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my part of the country, many yards have cardboard cutouts of Obama's head with a very long nose, a Pinocchio nose, meaning that Obama lies. The Republicans crossed the rubicon of Orwellian doublespeak long ago. Of course, Obama's political liability is that he is incapable of telling lies; Romney's political advantage is that he is incapable of telling the truth. It's concerning that we may elect a president whose position on issues is indecipherable. It's more concerning that many Americans either don't care or are incapable of seeing the obvious.

- rayward

October 11, 2012 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It makes perfect sense that they would decry it as Fascist. They spent all the political capital from the words Communist and Socialist, so they're reduced to using the word Fascist to feed their ad hominem style arguments. And it makes sense that they would complain about calling their candidate a liar, even though he is a liar; and everyone knows he's lying, the compilation videos of Romney contradicting himself alone are astounding, so they're left with attacking the argument on other grounds and in ways that don't alienate those few remaining critical swing voters that might still decide to vote for Romney.

- GSpinks

October 11, 2012 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You don't really have to use the term at all. Just show that Romney said this, then said that. It's more effective, since people will conclude he's lying on their own. The Daily Show does it all the time.

- dstatton

October 11, 2012 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Michael Kinsley, the former editor of this magazine . . ." Uhm, not really necessary to identify The Great One. Anybody who doesn't know The Great One doesn't know "Timothy Noah, Senior Editor at The New Republic", either, and is highly unlikely to read his (Noah's) blog. It brings to mind the continued identification by newspapers of "Tampa, Florida". Where else might Tampa be? In New York?

- rayward

October 11, 2012 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If we can't say "liar" can we use the euphemism LSOS?

- Sophia

October 11, 2012 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Mikelawyr's analogy of Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo nails it. Getting Romney to come clean on his plans is like the scene where the insurance company guy is trying to get Lundegaard to send over vehicle regstration documents that aren't illegible or misfed into the fax machine or whatever other trick he's using to disguise the fact that the paperwork is bogus.

- ironyroad

October 11, 2012 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe it's time to resurrect "When Clinton lied, nobody died". Because Romney's lies will lead to people losing their health insurance, reduce their Medicare/Medicaid, and probably involve invading Iran at some point. Not to mention the people who'll die from reduction in public services, in order to pay for his 20% tax cut and maintain the Bush tax-cuts. It turns out, the policies of whoever you support DO have consequences.

- AllanL5

October 11, 2012 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What does Romney's casual "tell them what they want to hear" approach to truth say about Bain Capital's (not to single out any one corporation or anything) business practices? I keep feeling like I'm being sold a very, very, very unreliable used car (or company), being assured that everyone will keep they jobs and their pensions (heh! heh! heh!), and that everyone will make a fortune (and not just the fortunate few).

- bMorHon

October 11, 2012 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unfortunately, it is unbecoming to call a liar a `liar.' It is better to simply lay out examples of their pattern of treachery and force them to deny their behaviour/statements which are well-documented. Thus the lead comment which President Obama should put to Romney about his "lies" in their next debate (preceded by ads of the same nature) should go something like this: `Is this how you did business when you were at Bain, Mr. Romney? Did you make grandiose promises to the employees of those companies which you bought out...only to eventually load them with debit, divest their pension funds, force wage reductions, etc.,...until you could extract maximum profit for you and your investors? It seems, on the basis of your most recent positions, that your Bain experience has in fact given served as vital experience for how you would seek to manage Corp U.S.A.'

- vst

October 11, 2012 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spellchecker be damned!

- vst

October 11, 2012 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Saying "that's not true" or "you are mistaken about that" are more acceptable ways of contradicting someone. Calling someone a liar tends to shift the argument from the issue at hand to the moral character of your opponent. Not always a wise choice, unless you want to wade into that swamp.

- Vogelfam

October 11, 2012 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney and Obama are both liars, lets move on.

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, there's a substantial difference in scale and intensity. Even worse, however, is the sheer hollowness of Romney, the sense that he will simply say anything that comes into his head that he believes the audience of the minute wants to hear.

- ironyroad

October 11, 2012 at 4:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nicomachus said, "Romney and Obama are both liars, lets move on." This is a truly appalling remark of false equivalency. It is contradicted by reams of facts. And this is true even if I put a fake but very real looking sticker on my bumper that says, with cheery graphics, "Romney Ryan BECAUSE OUR LIES ARE AS BIG AND BOLD AS ALL AMERICA!" Causes some double takes, confusion ---and laughter among those getting the joke in the rearview mirror. I have also had a couple congratulations in the parking lots for it. Go figure. My Obama friends (and he is getting my vote) tell me to remove it because it sends the wrong message, and not because people don't read the find print (the slogan under the names)--it is because they do read it, but I think they may be a touch too cynical.

- atlasqq

October 11, 2012 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

atlasqq, ironyroad, you are suffering from "my crap smells better" syndrome. Romney only seems more of a liar to you (I wonder how you could possibly quantify that) because you are rooting for the other guy to begin with. I can give you long list of Obama "lies", some which have caused real damage. However, I doubt it will persuade you given your predetermined conclusion.

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nicomachus: Nope, don't think so. Colorful language, though.

- atlasqq

October 11, 2012 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Would anyone here vote for Romney even if he were a fanatic "truth teller?" I certainly wouldn't. His lying is just one more reason not to vote for him but not the essential reason.

- arnon1

October 11, 2012 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "No, there's a substantial difference in scale and intensity. Even worse, however, is the sheer hollowness of Romney, the sense that he will simply say anything that comes into his head that he believes the audience of the minute wants to hear." He has this in common with our Republican Senator Scott Brown.

- arnon1

October 11, 2012 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see much mileage in Obama using the word to describe Romney, even though it fits like a glove. Calling someone a liar sounds petty and sophomoric. Better to take each issue as they come up and ask "Which of the following positions that you've espoused on that in the recent past are you standing on today, Mr. Romney?" Takes more work, and if last Wednesday is any guide, more presence of mind that Obama has in a debate, but much more effective. Where he invents facts not about his position, but about actually verifiable reality, in which case, "Let's be clear, Mr. Romney, you're putting your claim that black is white ahead of these authorities (list a few) that say in fact black is black?" About 45% of the country is going to believe Romney regardless of what he says. I had a conversation yesterday with well educated, very successful guy in the tech industry, who when I pointed out the sheer mendacity of Romney over the course of the campaign on the question of taxes literally aid to me, "you may be right, but I still believe him." WHen I asked "believe which version" he said, "it doesn't matter, I don't like Obama." If these guys built technology or treated our clients the way they approach this question, we'd be bankrupt by Christmas.

- IowaBeauty

October 11, 2012 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nico - please, do share. I was going to ask, but since you offered...

- Nari224

October 11, 2012 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Romney only seems more of a liar to you (I wonder how you could possibly quantify that)" By listing both the radically different changes of position (e.g. on abortion) he has taken over the years and the false accusations (e.g. apologizing for America) he continues to level at Obama and the particular shameless obfuscations (e.g. six bodies have reviewed his tax plan and found that it doesn't add to the deficit) in the first debate. Just for starters. But as I said, it's more the sense of a glib salesman who will say anything in a tight corner that's more disturbing -- to me at least -- than the lies themselves.

- ironyroad

October 11, 2012 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, let me appeal to your sense of intellectual honesty.. here is a very short list of Obama lies: (1) Obama lied that the individual mandate was not a tax. He later asserted the opposite in court. (2) Obama said regarding Obamacare, "over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up -- it's true -- but they've gone up slower than any time i the last 50 years." Total lie, checkout Politifact (3) Obama said “I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration” Naked lie, checkout ABC article (4) Romney and Ryan will gut pell grants for low-income college students. Lie..Factcheck.org (5) Transparency.. major legislature negotiations will be covered on C-span.. remember that one? Seen many PPACA negotiations on C-span? LOL (6) “My budget will cut the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years.” Factcheck.org (7) Obama said “Governor Romney … invested in companies that were called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing. I don’t want to outsource. I want to insource.” General Motors outsources 2/3 of its jobs! See Forbes article. (8) “Mitt Romney would deny gay people the right to adopt children” Romney denies this vehemently. (9) Obama claimed that the PPACA will not increase the deficit by one dime. (10) Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year (11) I didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was radical ... LOL (12) Probably lying about the Libya embassy attack.. unless we are to believe protesters happen to have rocket launchers (13) Etc. etc. As I said, this is just the tip of the iceberg. So.. can we agree that they are both equal liars?

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 8:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nico, I'm glad I have a different sense of intellectual honesty from you: (1) is nonsense -- that is a matter of legal interpretation (2) the question is whether the ACA will bend health costs downward over time -- it's the best chance so far, but I agree that we need a system that removes private profit from medical care (3) F&F was a program begun under the Bush administration (4) We have to take Romney and Ryan on trust and I don't care to (5) The question of a promise not kept is somewhat different from a lie (6) We'll see (7) We're talking about overseas outsourcing (8) Romney denies everything vehemently (9) The ACA is the first real attempt to get health costs under control - see (2) (10) See (5) (11) Don't be ridiculous (12) let's not pontificate on what we don't know about, ok? Obama is someone who rather painfully tends toward the truth, more than most politicians imo.

- ironyroad

October 11, 2012 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ryan wasn't just a liar tonight he kept using certain formulaic phrases that sounded very artificial.

- arnon1

October 11, 2012 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon1, Biden seemed like a demented laughing hyena

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 11:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, your justifications and hair splitting for what are patently lies underscores the level of intellectually dishonesty partisans are willing to go to. Even when faced with indictments from independent fact checkers, still you cannot be persuaded. Disappointing.

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 11:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"ironyroad, your justifications and hair splitting for what are patently lies underscores the level of intellectually dishonesty partisans are willing to go to." Actually, Nico, your hairsplitting is what allows you to believe that Obama lies at the level of Romney. The PPACA tax issue is a revealing example. Obama said the penalty wasn't a tax. In court, the administration's lawyers argued that it was a tax. Since you are clearly not familiar with mustering legal arguments, I'll clue you in a standard practice in law: you make the best arguments that are available to you. For example, if you were fighting with a neighbor over ownership of some land, you might argue to the court that you had a deed to the land, and if the deed is not found to be valid, you have obtained the land through adverse possession, and if found not to have met the conditions of adverse possession, then the neighbor has acquiesced to your ownership. This isn't called lying; it's called making your best case. More directly relevant to your hairsplitting (as opposed to your ill-informed analysis) is the fact that whether it is called a tax or not a tax has no bearing on the known effects of the legislation. Everyone knew the tax/non-tax provision was in the bill, and it passed. Making a stink over what it is called is the essence of splitting hairs. For example, let's say you are buying a used car from me. You come look at it, test drive it, and decide to buy it. I write up a quick agreement that refers to the car as 'maroon'. You raise a fuss saying, "In your ad you said it was 'red', and while we were talking about it you kept calling it 'red, now you're calling it 'maroon'!" Who gives a crap whether I call it red or maroon? You saw the car, you either like it or you don't, and whatever I call it doesn't actually change the color of the car. Look at all the time you made me waste just on your first weak example. I'm not going to spend my whole day doing this with each of your examples, especially each one has its own unique problems. Suffice it to say that your attempt at false equivalence is completely unconvincing.

- Fishpeddler

October 12, 2012 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fish and irony: it is pointless to discuss the ACA tax issue with Nico. Have already tried to explain that there is a difference between the objective reality of the mandate (and the penalty) and its constitutional character. On the abortion thread, I pointed out exactly what Fish has pointed out. He refuses to understand what to me is basic civics.

- icarus-r

October 12, 2012 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Problem is guys, Nico's right. The way you can tell a politician is lying is that his lips are moving. That said, in terms of relevance to the issues of the day including the election, Romney's lies are more damaging. Obama mostly lies out of over-confidence or misguided damage control. The Mitt-bot's and Robin's lies go to the definition of reality from which they propose to govern. No thank you very much.

- Robert Powell

October 12, 2012 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nico, your own hairsplitting undermines whatever valid points you could have made. Example: Fast and Furious. In a completely nitpicking sense, yes, Fast and Furious under that code name was started in 2009. But there were other gun-tracing operations on the same model carried out by the Arizona ATF beginning in 2006. If the topic is gun-tracing operations (whatever you think about them on the merits) then Obama was of course telling the basic truth and you were being disingenuous.

- ironyroad

October 12, 2012 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have already debated the Obamacare tax issue ad nauseum in another post, so I will simply say that Fishpeddler and icarus-r are missing the point here entirely. As far as Fast and Furious, Irony, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that in your zeal to support your candidate of choice, you neglected to research the facts on F&F. This was a uniquely discernable program in scope, leadership, operational details, and ultimate consequences. Yes, there were other “gun walking” operations, but this one was by far the most problematic, scandalous, and occurred entirely under Obama’s watch. F&F was a specific operation intended to target the Mexican drug cartels. It was conceived and implemented in October of 2009 by high ranking officials in Obama’s Department of Justice. In June 2010, suspects had purchased 1,608 firearms at a cost of over US $1 million. This scope was unprecedented. The ATF became aware that 130 F&F weapons had been found in US crime scenes. Additionally, 179 F&F weapons had been found at murderous crime scenes in Mexico. Countless agents complained about F&F, yet the administration did nothing. As guns traced to F&F began turning up at violent crime scenes in Mexico, ATF agents stationed there also voiced opposition, again the Obama administration failed to take action. On December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was shot and killed by an F&F gun in the hands of a Mexican criminal. That had never happened in any other “gun walking” operation, period. This tragedy was uniquely specific to F&F. You have to be biased beyond reason to not acknowledge that F&F is uniquely controversial. Here is exactly what Obama said: “I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration Clearly this was an inaccurate and misleading statement as F&F was started in 2009. Note that Obama specifically referenced F&F and I think he is intelligent enough to understand what he is saying and how most people would interpret it. Even if we were to bend over backwards and radically reinterpret this statement to mean that Obama meant to say “the category of programs like F&F begun under the previous administration”, this statement is still highly misleading. As I proved above, F&F is a uniquely problematic and controversial scandal. The reinterpreted meaning you have assigned to Obama’s actual statement would constitute a deliberate fallacy of composition. If his statement on F&F is not a lie, I don’t know what is. Clearly Obama was dishonestly seeking to redirect political responsibility to the previous administration. Please verify my facts and then I ask how can this possibly be defended as anything other than a lie?

- Nicomachus

October 12, 2012 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nico: then since the claim that Obama lie failed to gain any traction outside of people who overtly wear their bias against Obama on their sleeve, and the GOP Congress didn't even bother to censure Obama, then I think we can safely assume that you don't know what lying is. At least, as it is understood by a vast majority of others. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/ I think you would benefit greatly from reading the Fortune magazine (a bastion of left wingers I ever there was one) investigation into what really happened in F&F and one possible motivation behind the subsequent investigation. Also, since you appear so concerned with lying, you may be well served to check your source from the above. The bullet that killed Terry was too badly mangled to be positively connected to eithet the F&F guns or non walked guns found at the scene. Thus " Brian Terry was shot and killed by an F&F gun" is actually a lie.

- Nari224

October 13, 2012 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari224, it is always amazing to see the lengths partisans will go to dismiss faults in their ideological deities. It is like trying to convince cult members that their leader is a huckster. I have Obama caught on friggin video making a counter factual and self serving statement; still I cannot convince his followers! Your point on the Fortune article is entirely irrelevant as to whether Obama was being truthful. The opinions expressed in this article by Katherine Eban, a left leaning journalist, are hotly disputed. (And yes, unlike TNR, Fortune regularly publishes a variety of viewpoints). Furthermore, even if all of her conclusions are correct, that still does not justify Obama’s attempt to redirect responsibility for this controversial issue. “GOP Congress didn't even bother to censure Obama” This is again not here or there in respect to Obama being liar. However, for the record, the House of Representatives voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to disclose internal Justice Department documents in response to a subpoena. It was the first time in American history that Congress has imposed the sanction on a sitting member of a president’s cabinet. Finally, the issue of the gun used to kill Brian Terry. From the FBI report of December 23, 2010 regarding the BrianTerry shooting (posted by NY Times on July 26, 2011) said that the bullet" fired from a barrel rifled with four grooves, right twist, such as the K2 and K3 rifles".. “Due to a lack of sufficient agreement in the individual microscopic marks of value, it could not be determined if the Q6 bullet was tired from the barrel of the K2 or K3 rifles.” Q6 is the bullet that killed Terry. K2 and K3 were the two F&F AK47 assault rifles found at the crime scene. The report confirmed that K2 and K3 were recently fired, obviously (in my opinion) during the shootout. I admit it is theoretically possible, although highly unlikely, that a third AK47, which oddly did not come from the same F&F lot as K2 & K3, fired the fatal shot. Part of the problem here is that we do not have a complete view of the incident because large parts of F&F records were suppressed by the Obama administration under executive privilege, which resulted in Eric Holder being held in contempt of Congress. Something Obama worshipers swallowed as well - so much for the promised “transparency”. Again, whether Terry was specifically killed by a bullet fired from an F&F gun or was merely killed in a shootout involving F&F guns has little bearing on whether Obama made a dishonest statement regarding his administrations culpability in a scandal. I can understand someone saying, “Yes, Obama is a politician and tells lies like the rest of them, but I like his policies better than Romney’s”. However, how can any reasonable and honest person say with a straight face that Obama does not lie like all politicians?

- Nicomachus

October 13, 2012 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nico: OK, so to summarize: 1. That the political party with the most to gain, who either routinely make all sorts of absurd claims (or do not denounce absurd claims) about the president, does not censure the president for lying this doesn't even trigger the slightest concern that the claim may be overblown? Is the GOP part of some vast left wing MSM conspiracy now? I mean, what's the downside, especially in an election year, if it's demonstrably true? If it's not, then what are you talking about? 2. If your statement "I have Obama caught on friggin video making a counter factual and self serving statement" is with regards to Obama saying “I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration" (its not clear to me), then it depends what you understand is being said here. Without a doubt the policy of gun walking started in Wide Receiver, in 2006. I assume we are not in disagreement here. That's pretty clearly what the president is talking about since it's unlikely anyone would be talking about F&F if it hadn't been walking guns that eventually ended up around a dead agent. It's also probably worth noting that Gun walking was not discussed nor proposed as part of F&F, but was an operational decision by the Phoenix ATF (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/11/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20110811), most likely because they had already used the strategy under Bush's DOJ. So if the claim of a lie is "Well, obviously F&F started under Obama", that's probably fair. However it's pretty obviously not what Obama was referring to. Now I don't believe that anyone above has posited that Obama doesn't lie as you seem to believe. They have all said that there is a world of difference between the lies told by Obama (exaggerations, over promising, whatever) and Romney. Here's an example of a much clearer lie "There are 6 studies that demonstrate that my/our tax plan works". When 5 of the studies do not actually show this (the ones that "did" needed to assume levels of growth the US has basically never experienced and so can be assumed to be imaginary scenarios) and one is a press statement from your own team stating that it works by assertion, that's a much clearer lie. 3. So you concede that we can't trace the bullet that killed Terry to a recovered F&G gun and you need to fall back on qualifications such as "in my opinion", making the previous use of the considerably more definitive "was" a lie by anyone's definition. That's embarrassing.

- Nari224

October 13, 2012 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari224 The fact that Congress has not censured the president is not proof of his honesty. If Congress censured every presidential political lie uttered in public, there would be nothing but censures on the legislature dockets. In fact, there has only been a single presidential censures in history and that was in 1834. If we were to follow your logic, we would conclude that there was only a single presidential lie told in history - an absurd proposition. You wrote "Without a doubt the policy of gun walking started in Wide Receiver, in 2006.. That's pretty clearly what the president is talking about since it's unlikely anyone would be talking about F&F if it hadn't been walking guns that eventually ended up around a dead agent." I already addressed this in previous post, but let me try to make it clear again. It is not "gun walking" that has caused a massive political firestorm, but the F & F operation specifically. Other "gun walking" programs, like Wide Receiver, never resulted in a political problem. Second, the Wide Receiver program was in many important respects significantly different from F & F and had a correspondingly different set of consequences. Furthermore, if the president was really referencing another program "like F & F", he should have called it such and made that argument clear. Finally, you are reinterpreting what Obama said in a desperate attempt to mold some honest meaning out of an obvious lie. It is akin to Romney saying that what he "obviously meant" by "47% of people are moochers" is that "government has gotten too big". Its total subterfuge. Examine Obama's statement on its face, which is how most people would view it - it is obviously deception. I can't believe we are even debating this point. "There is a world of difference between the lies told by Obama (exaggerations, over promising, whatever) and Romney." You will find that at the bottom of this statement is your own internal biases. Republicans make the exact same claim with names reversed. If I were to play devils advocate, there is no Romney lie you could present that I could not dismiss as exaggerations, over promising, changed his mind, misspoke, matter of opinion, consider some other fact source, reinterpretation, etc. In my next post, I will apply this logical to your "6 study" assertion. Regarding the gun issue. You are absolutely right. I should have written that "Terry was *most likely* killed by an F & F gun" and given a few clarifying details. And yes, it is embarrassing to make errors on factual details, but it is a heck of a lot less embarrassing then advocating a fundamental argument you know to be untrue.

- Nicomachus

October 13, 2012 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari224, here is my refutation of the so called Romney “6 study lie” using the methods of Obama advocates.. I indulge in a little parody at the end. 1. Harvey Rosen paper 2. Marty Feldstein Wall Street Journal op-ed. 3. Marty Feldstein blog post 4. Matt Jensen blog post at AEI 5. Curtis Dubay blog post at HeritageCurtis Dubay blog post at Heritage 6. Romney Tax Reform White Paper. Each of these studies fundamentally supports Romney’s plan, although each has a different set of assumptions. Assumptions are common and accepted in economic projections. Obama uses them all the time – like in the incorrect projections he made for low unemployment rates given the stimulus bill is passed: http://washingtonexaminer.com/team-obama-said-in-09-stimulus-would-have-unemployment-below-6-by-2012/article/2503947 (did you cry "liar liar"?) Romney's study (#6) was produced by qualified economists hired by the Romney campaign. You may call their objectivity into question, but it is a "study" and it most certainly supports Romney's plan, so where is the lie? I do not see any actual lies here, but rather an ideological dispute over policy and nit picking over details. Also, Romney is an honest church going family man, while Obama is a demagoguing left wing huckster bent on destroying everything good about America.

- Nicomachus

October 13, 2012 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWIW I'm supporting the demagoguing huckster bent on destroying everything good about America, because he will have a much better chance of dealing with a hopefully chastened gang of Republican fantasists currently lodged in Congress to solve some of our more pressing problems than would the hopelessly vacuous Mitt-bot. He'll probably continue to bend the truth in doing so as is SOP in every White House. That said, I think his first act after the election should be to fire Eric Holder. He's been an embarrassment in a number of matters, none worse than F&F. O's lack of candor, besides just basically dodging blame, seems to be covering for Holder. I doubt O knew about this fiasco before it broke, and Holder might not have either. But as AG Holder SHOULD have known, and not only pulled the plug but fired those responsible. In my view this catastrophe is typical of the many, many other tragedies caused and still being caused by our out-of-control Global Wars on Common Sense (both Drug and Terror Departments), which has continued to grow by leaps and bounds for over forty years with support from Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Why is it that with all the rending of garments and tearing of hair over Big Government, Republicans never complain, much less do anything about, the part of government that has grown the fastest, is the most intrusive, and arguably the most damaging of all, the Intelligence/Security Complex?

- Robert Powell

October 14, 2012 at 6:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close