Skip to main content

MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.

MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.

So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.

That Mitt Romney got caught telling a falsehood, in real time, in front of tens of millions of live viewers, was not the big surprise. Romney tells lies, all the time, in front of everyone. What was so shocking about Romney getting caught lying about President Obama's reaction to the horrors of the terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was that it was a member of the traditional media who called him out. Usually, members of the traditional media don't bother with real time fact-checking, and debate moderator Candy Crowley never has been known as overly friendly to Democrats, but this Romney falsehood was just too big and too ugly, with facts too obvious to ignore. And Republicans have reacted to this unexpected interlude into the realm of reality with accustomed derangement.

When Romney got all excited, and wanted everyone to note that Obama at the debate had called the Benghazi terror attack a terror attack, so he could make the false point that the president had waited two weeks before first calling the terror attack a terror attack, you could almost see Crowley scowling and thinking, "Oh, bullshit!" But the most interesting aspect of that defining political moment was the expression on Romney's face. The lifelong petty little bully seemed to think he had a gotcha moment, just as he seemed to think he had a gotcha moment the day of the attack, when he smirkingly tried to score cheap and sleazy political points off a still developing story that was really about horror and sadness and irreparable loss. To anyone with a basic sense of humanity. But if you watch the video of Romney during that seminal moment of the second presidential debate, what is most striking isn't his juvenile demeanor, it's the confidence that was fueling that demeanor. And that's where we get to the real story.

Romney tells lies as naturally as he breathes, and Steve Benen has compiled a weekly tally— 38 pages of lists of Romney's lies, adding up to hundreds, if not more than a thousand, individual Romney lies. It's a truly impressive achievement by Romney, and perhaps in his honor we will in the future refer to all political lies as Romneys, but in this instance he seemed actually to believe what he was saying. And that's where we start to get to the real story. Romney's mendacity is so complete, so total, so absolute, that even he no longer knows when he is lying. He lives in an alternate reality. But Romney is just one among a crowd of mendacious Republicans, while the larger and more disturbing reality is that the entire Republican Party now lives in an alternate reality, a collective delusion that increasingly bears little relation at all to even demonstrable facts and verified scientific truths. Romney and Republicans do consciously tell lies, and they do it often and without conscience, but they accord no negative value to lying because they accord no positive value to even the existence of truths. As noted by Jonathan Bernstein, in the Washington Post:

This was the night in which the conservative closed information feedback loop and its close cousin, lazy mendacity, caught up with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — in a big way.
Romney got caught in a sleazy blatant falsehood, in real time, in front of a massive live audience, and the reason for it was that he is so used to speaking to reality-challenged right-wing audiences that he no longer knows what is real and what is not. Because the Republican Party could not exist in its modern form if it and its propagandists had any relationship with the truth. Its entire agenda depends on the creation, the promotion, and the inculcation of fictive narratives.
Romney has been doing this for, literally, years now. His main platform on foreign policy, after all, is to reject an “apology tour” that never happened and that people have been correcting him on for years. He’s come up with the new one, “unraveling,” recently, but hasn’t bothered to fill in anything — at all — about what is unraveling, or how. Nor is it just foreign policy. His tax plan doesn’t come close to adding up, and his jobs plan doesn’t, either. He repeats flat-out lies again and again, no matter how many times they’ve been shot down. As I said, lazy mendacity — even where the facts would do well for him, as in trillion-dollar deficits, he chooses instead to constantly claim that Obama doubled the deficit, which isn’t true. Sure, every candidate exaggerates and stretches and spins, but Romney’s complete apparent indifference to bother to get things right is unusual.

The question is: Why shouldn’t he do it? Republican-aligned media surely aren’t going to call him on it. Indeed, within the GOP political loop, there’s no one who is even going to realize that they have a basic factual thing wrong; that’s what happens when you convince yourself that the neutral press is out to get you, and you’ve trained your supporters to only pay attention to what they hear on Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh program, so you had better stay tuned to them yourself or else you won’t be able to talk the way you need to. Of course, that’s how a candidate winds up insulting half of America, because that’s what high-level party donors expect to hear.

Romney and the Republicans live in an alternate reality, where demonstrable facts are ignored, where lies can be repeated so many times that even those telling them forget they are lies, and where no one is allowed to interject the truth, even when the truth is as easy to prove as quoting a transcript or viewing a video. The Republican Party has so many problems right now, but none is bigger than its willful disregard and even disdain for factual truths.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

Not that Republicans themselves will care about scientific research, but in March the Los Angeles Times reported some scientific research:

A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

And the most obvious highlight was this:
To highlight the dramatic impact conservative views of science have had on public opinion, Gauchat pointed to results from Gallup, which found in 2012 that just 30% of conservatives believed the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gases versus 50% two years earlier. In contrast, the poll showed almost no change in the opinion of liberals, with 74% believing in global warming in 2010 versus 72% in 2008.
Republicans living in a fantasy land of their own imagining is not uncommon. Missouri Republican congressman and Senate nominee Todd Akin believes abortions can be performed on women who are not pregnant, and that in the case of "legitimate rape" women can't become pregnant, anyway. Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann repeatedly gets confused about basic historical facts, such as where the Revolutionary War began or which of the Presidents Adams was old enough to have been a signer of the nation's founding documents. Republican Rep. Joe Walsh believes women no longer ever die or suffer physical harm from complications of pregnancy. Republican media clown Sarah Palin went to Boston, to describe the purpose of Paul Revere's ride exactly backward. But beyond examples of individual idiocy, this is about an entire alternate narrative of reality which has been deliberately concocted to promote political agendas that could not survive if people actually knew and understood basic facts.

Chris Mooney wrote a book on The Republican War on Science, and the traditional media, typically, chose mostly to ignore it. But as Mooney pointed out last February, the alternate reality adhered to by Republicans and conservatives isn't primarily due to poor education or lack of intelligence. Indeed, studies have shown that more educated Republicans actually are more likely than less educated Republicans to believe such thoroughly debunked lies as that the president is a Muslim or that his health care law includes death panels (pdf).

Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. In their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that’s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria—true or false?”) as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., “If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?”).

The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science—e.g., a political conservative or “hierarchical-individualist”—then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group—“egalitarian-communitarians” or liberals—who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change—which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.

Republicans are divorced from reality not because they are collectively stupid, but because their political ideology necessitates it. And to what does Mooney attribute this?
For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.
And the same dynamic holds on a raft of issues, where the narratives of not only Republicans but of the wider traditional media consistently misrepresent political realities. Are the Republicans or are the Democrats better for the economy? Are the Republicans or are the Democrats better for employment? Are the Republicans or are the Democrats better for deficit reduction? Are the Republicans or are the Democrats better for the stock market? Are the Republicans or are the Democrats better for national security? In each case, there is a presumed advantage for the Republicans, and in each case that presumed advantage is demonstrably and historically false.

Of course, the ultimate example of the Republicans ignoring science and reality is on climate change. It is the most important issue humanity has ever faced. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. The Republicans deny that scientific consensus. Mitt Romney denies that scientific consensus. Paul Ryan denies that scientific consensus. Right-wing "think" tanks are deliberately trying to fool people about that scientific consensus. The traditional media ignore and obfuscate that scientific consensus.

Denial of science and denial of reality have become basic features of modern Republican politics. Sometimes it is about deliberate lies. Sometimes it is about misinformation and disinformation reverberating and concatenating within a hermetically sealed echo chamber. But whether individual examples are deliberate or accidental, the Republican Party's entire narrative and its entire agenda could not exist without the promulgation of and belief in demonstrable falsehoods. The Republican Party's collective consciousness is a morass of lies and delusions. And given the gravity of the stakes, on both politics and policy, this could not be more dangerous.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Republicans really are in a fact-free bubble. (118+ / 0-)

    On Real Time Friday night, Bill Maher tried for at least 10 minutes to get two conservatives (John Fund and some other jerk) to admit what was in the transcript - that Obama referred to Benghazi as an act of terror the day after it happened.  They refused, despite the words "acts of terror" being right there in front of them.  It was just mind-boggling.

  •  Interesting study. (12+ / 0-)

    I wonder if Educated Republicans identify more with science-as-studied-by-exceptional-individuals who create breakthroughs and prove everyone wrong, and less with science as an industry that slowly evolves truths over time, with big teams of researchers.

    Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

    by ConfusedSkyes on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:20:44 AM PDT

  •  They had 9/11. We had Benghazi (18+ / 0-)

    Are we going to pretend a tragic incident wherein 4 Americans were killed represents some systematic failure on behalf of Obama?

  •  Here is the reality.... I WON (5+ / 0-)

    Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Nevada

    Show me how Romney wins one of those states... if you can't he loses.  End of story.

  •  i heard where (0+ / 0-)

    candy has changed her tune on her comment at the debate about saying libya was a terrorist attack, is that true.

    •  No. Candy merely expanded her answer. (6+ / 0-)

      Crowley in an attempt to be even handed expanded her answer to say that there was a ten day period  in which the demonstration/anti-muslim movie was talked about (by the state department) as a possible cause.

      This did not necessarily detract from the fact that President Obama's Rose Garden comments did indicate that a terrorist act was involved.

      In my opinion she was trying too hard to be fair minded. I personally think she was shocked at Romney's bold face lie in asserting the Republican bubble "factoid".

      •  sounds to me (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RF, politicalceci, sidnora

        like the msm as usual bend over backwards for the right and want to bend the left over and screw them, same o same o.

      •  something else Crowley said (0+ / 0-)

        Crowley said later that she was just trying to move the debate along.  Imagine what the news would be like if there were some equivelant of the two candidates staring at Candy with expectant eyebrows raised on every program.  Every he said/ she said and "both sides do it" on CNN put to a final tally, every meandering conspiracy theory on Fox set in a straightforward statement of unadorned horseshit.  What if the media's program and duty were not to waste time endlessly?

        •  The Debate as Game show (0+ / 0-)

          This is a format that will get mega ratings: Contestants (Obama and Rmoney) Spin the wheel and answer whatever question it lands on. A panel of fact checkers vets the answer in real time and the audience scores the answer Up or Down. The Host resolves ties. There's a time limit and bonus questions.
          The winner gets half the loser's campaign warchest.

      •  Eye witnesses reported the attackers saying (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Creosote

        the anti-Mohammad film was their motive.

        Try al Jazeera and BBC if you want clips.

        Even motivated by the film, it's terrorism. An armed militia attacked civilians. And there's no evidence of "al Qaeda influence."

        What else ????

    •  No. She issued a clarification statement. GOPers (7+ / 0-)

      then said she had backed down.  She did not, and after the claims that she backed down came out she again reaffirmed that PBHO did indeed call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden the day after it happened.  What you heard is an attempt by wing nuts to spin the story.

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

      by ratcityreprobate on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:38:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, it is not true (5+ / 0-)

      Commenters on Fox, I believe, claimed almost immediately after the debate that she recanted, and the claim was pushed hard in the right wing noise machine. She denied the claim the following day.

      "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

      by Orinoco on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:40:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She said at the time both were right (0+ / 0-)

      Obama did say act of terror in the Rose Garden but didn't specifically say the attacks were terrorist acts in a speech for 2 weeks.  Which isn't exactly true, as he repeated the comment about acts of terror on the campaign trail.  She was trying to be even-handed I think but everyone jumped on the first remark and skipped over the second part, both that night and in the aftermath.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:51:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cultic mentality (17+ / 0-)

    Say whatever, whenever, and say it repeatedly. Fit it to the mindset of the base and they'll believe it all.  They will then spread it far and wide for anyone else who may have an inkling of the same mindset.

    Having been in a cult for 15 years while in my twenties, I recognize what the right wing has done continuously since Bushco.  Mind-bending and it's frightening that so many buy into it so easily.

    •  How many Germans bought into the corporal? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      basket, bontemps2012, rhauenstein, covered

      Propaganda means and methods have imporved quite a bit since then.  Why are we surprised?

      •  Why are we surprised? (10+ / 0-)

        We're surprised for the same reason millions of ordinary Germans were surprised: because it's happening here, in our country, to people we know and in some cases love. We know they can't really buy into all that ridiculous claptrap. We know our country is better than this. We know that what we see -- despite the clear evidence of our senses -- must be some sort of horrible misunderstanding, because it can't possibly be happening here, to them, to us.

        We must be mistaken about what we see, because otherwise we're mistaken about what we believe about ourselves and our society. Since most of us firmly believe that we (collectively) are better than this, smarter than this, less gullible and willful and small than this, we question our perceptions and our conclusions until it's too late for anything but to be surprised.

        Look at any successful internal propaganda effort in the modern world (i.e., an effort directed by a group of folk against their own people, in the time since it became relatively easy both to spread disinformation and to check it for accuracy). In every case you'll find the same surprise on the part of those who don't fall for the party line.

        Why are we surprised? Why wouldn't we be? We know America is better than this. We believe it in our bones. That's part of why propaganda is so powerful and insidious a weapon -- it undermines one group's perception of reality while undermining the opposition's faith in the nation as a whole, and in our own neighbors and friends and family. For many, disbelief is preferable to disillusionment.

        "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

        by pragmaticidealist on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:35:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tho in our case, many just too damn lazy to see wh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pragmaticidealist

          ats been in front of them, rather than disillusioned.  

          The media in chief among those.  Its far easier to take the money and sweet little lies than acknowledge their Faustian bargain.

          •  The media is another question entirely. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            politicalceci, chrismorgan

            My concern above was with the question of why individuals (and collections of individuals) are surprised. The media is a whole 'nother beast.

            In the case of the media, we have a self-selected group of folk who have made a conscious decision to present reality to society. That's what journalism is, stripped down to its essentials. When journalists (or those posing as journalists) opt to present anything other than cold, hard facts, they fail to do their jobs. Worse, they fail reprehensibly to do their chosen life's work.

            Same thing applies to commentators, critics, etc. If it's presented in a "news" venue, it's supposed to be based on demonstrable fact, not just opinion or petulance. Yes, some lucky few are paid to air their opinions -- but they're supposed to have earned that privilege through a career of presenting the facts honorably despite their personal views. And they're supposed to play fairly even with opinion, making sure they're strongly based on fact before they open their mouths to opine.

            So while I don't think most of us are more lazy than disinclined to accept that so many of the folk around us are credulous fools, I have no quibble with your take on the media. A few try to do the work, but far too many just pander to the advertisers and big stockholders.

            "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

            by pragmaticidealist on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:24:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  They had Glenn Beck pushing the cult (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      politicalceci

      White Horse Prophecy on Fox for years.

      Lies are protected and they're going to take the White House.

      A few weeks ago Romney said something odd, apparently out-of-time about Russia. Here is where that originated:

      ...Many will come with bundles under their arms to escape the calamities for there will be no escape except only by escaping and fleeing to Zion. Those that come to you will try to keep the laws and be one with you for they will see your unity and the greatness of your organization. The Turkish Empire of the Crescent will be the first power to be disputed, for freedom must be given for the Gospel to be preached in the Holy Land. The Lord took of the best blood of the nations and planted them on the small islands now called England and Great Britain and gave them power in the nations for a thousand years and their power will continue with them that they may keep the balance of power; and they will keep Russia from sweeping her power over the world.
      This "WHP" is alleged to have been spoken in 1832 by the same Joseph Smith who founded LDS. But it was not written down until well after his death in 1843.

      LDS hierarchy protests that WHP is not doctrine. It never was. It was officially set aside in 1910. That doesn't stop the Becks and the Romneys.

      •  You'd think a divine prophecy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bontemps2012

        would at least get its geographic facts right. "The small islands now called England and Great Britain"? That is... bizarre... at best.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:38:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i would submit that some of this willingness to (13+ / 0-)

    disregard fact comes from the GOP's eforts to capture the religious fundamentalist vote.  the overwhelming majority of fundies believe some version of "young earth creationism" despite monumental evidence to the contrary.  It just isn't possible to indulge in making big lies to one's self to support one belief without that willingness to live in denial intruding into other areas.  

    For a few years I worked with people with substance abuse issues and the parallels in thinking between the worst of the addicts i encountered and fundies/today's GOP are striking.

    •  And to be a faithful Latter-Day Saint, one has to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bnasley, Creosote

      accept (or at least maintain some accepting mind-compartment for) a whole bunch of additional demonstrably untrue things.  For instance, Native Americans are "Lamanites," descendants of Israelites who arrived in huge enclosed wooden ships with magical artificial lighting.  And they built pyramids in Central America because that's what they saw back in Egypt.  And if they join the church and live by its teachings, they'll turn white.  Little things like that.    

  •  romney lying has become old news / boring . (4+ / 0-)

    How sad is that !

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:29:04 AM PDT

  •  So there are few educated Republicans... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmazingBlaise, bontemps2012

    If their leaders are in fact less educated than their followers, they have a real lack of education. I don't think it is exactly correct to say that Republican leadership is educated if their source of information is Fox news. If they are anti-science then they are not educated. They might know what to say to their base which is presumably(but not supported by evidence) less educated and very likely has less money (mostly supported by evidence), but this isn't the same as being educated. It is being trained to parrot disinformation.

  •  Orwellian thought processes (19+ / 0-)
    To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
    George Orwell, 1984.

    Mitt Romney treats people like things. And he treats things - corporations - like people.

    by richardak on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:30:11 AM PDT

  •  The Contrarian Conservatards of America, Unite! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarkW53, OldDragon

    Loyalty to the tribe must be demonstrated daily by denying basic scientific information.

     It is a quick and painless ritual.

  •  Mitt's has had lots of practice... (11+ / 0-)

    Mormon Bishops know full well that the Book of Mormon story is horseshit, but they are required to recite statements to its truthfulness regularly in their wards.  Been there, done that years ago. I don't do it anymore.

    When you have that much practice, preaching against reality in politics is child's play.

    This is, in my experience, the major explanation of this stilted Romney demeanor. I have seen it in any number of Mormon Bishops. You are required to recite the "company line" weekly, even though a part of your mind is screaming "Horseshit!"

    This is is what he is thinking when Mitt makes that weird grimace/smile when challenged in the facts. My kids used to make the same expression while dumping in their diapers.

  •  The surprise (14+ / 0-)

    That Mitt Romney got caught telling a falsehood, in real time, in front of tens of millions of live viewers, was not the big surprise.

    The surprise was that this had no apparent effect on his chances of winning the election.

    It didn't change the "Romney Surging!" narrative in the corporate press/media.  It didn't harm his standing with any key demographic.  

    Al Gore sighed a few times and fell several points in the polls.  This guy, Romney, refuses to answer legitimate questions and flat out lies and it seems to make him more popular.

    What is up with that?

  •  WaPo's editorial board says Mitt's tax plan math (15+ / 0-)

    does not add up either.

    Mitt Romney has a big problem with reality.  

    Mitt:  "Well, OF COURSE they add up..."

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:35:41 AM PDT

  •  "Unraveling" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wasatch, Gorette, Nowhere Man, Creosote

    Let's review:

     A number of Arab states who have been under brutal totalitarian regimes for decades some of which we've had our hands dirty if only by turning a blind eye, have now revolted against their oppressors under which has been called the Arab spring.

    But due to what could widely be described as the Kissinger doctrine brutal dictatorships are a perfectly acceptable form of "Stability" any lack of  "Stability" is viewed as "Unraveling"

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:42:39 AM PDT

    •  To review further (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, Creosote

      president bush claimed that one of the reasons to go into Iraq was that it would inspire the people of other Arab nations to rise up against their dictators. Apparently that rising up is only a good thing if it happens under a Republican administration.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:43:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  to me, this is quite telling (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Garrett, wasatch, AmazingBlaise
    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

    It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness.

    by raina on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:42:40 AM PDT

  •  The truly messed up thing about this, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, bontemps2012, Creosote

    and I know it's tough to score this, but A guy who has spent his business life looking at balance sheets ought to know that there is no upside to attacking Obama on foreign policy. None. He should have just waved it off and said that he would just do what Obama has been doing and zeroed out the account. Then he would have been in a strong position to come back with a line that says that a strong economy is a strong America, a much more fruitful line of attack. Damn, but he's bad at this!

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:43:32 AM PDT

  •  It's tribal - and authoritarian (14+ / 0-)

    It's a form of identity politics - you are what you are on the basis of what you believe if you're a Republican - Tea Partier - Conservative. You are expected to adhere to the party line as spelled out by FOX, Rush, Hannity, etc. etc.

    They routinely purge those from their ranks who dare to disagree and they punish those who are willing to seek compromise. They define themselves by their enemies - and they need those enemies to explain their failures. Because - and this is critical to understand - their response to facts that do not agree with their beliefs, a world that does not work they way they expect it must, their adoption of a belief system that explains everything about a world they fear depends on being able to blame outsiders or designated scapegoats when that belief system they are invested in fails to deliver.

    It is not an exaggeration to describe the G.O.P. as an authoritarian cult. As the would-be leader of the cult, the standard bearer, Romney is expected to uphold the values of the cult against everything - facts, history, reality.....

    If Romney does not win the election, he will be the scapegoat to explain the failure, not the belief system he's attempting to ride to power. If Romney wins and fails to deliver on all the promises he's made, the cult answer will be he wasn't a real member of the cult, he didn't believe hard enough, he compromised too much, he was sabotaged by Democrats - or they'll simply pretend it never happened, a la George W. Bush.

    The Republican Party needs to be driven into the wilderness until they either fade into history or rehabilitate themselves into something besides a cult. They are the last people who should be trusted with power.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:46:28 AM PDT

    •  Nice analysis (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote

      So how does that help Obama win the election?

      •  It never hurts to know what the stakes are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne, Creosote

        This helps Obama win the election by understanding where these people are coming from, and how they can be reached.

        One way to help people escape from cults is to help them see how their leaders, the beliefs they endorse, are based on lies and hypocrisy.  When they realize they're being betrayed to serve the interests of the leaders at the expense of the members of the cult, that can be enough to start putting cracks in the wall. Feelings of betrayal are often the catalyst that begins to dissolve the chains they've put on their own minds.

        Sara Robinson has written extensively about this, and the authoritarian nature of these groups. You can find her collected writings on the subject at Orcinus - just scroll down and look at the links on the left margin of the page. Look for Cracks in the Wall and Tunnels and Bridges.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:08:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Missed opportunity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wytcld, Nowhere Man

    Despite Obama's tour de force moment of "please continue,  governor", I thought he let an amazing opportunity slip through his fingers.

    He should have denounced once and for all, and forcefully,
    this absolute bullshit about "apologizing for America".

    It would have dovetailed nicely into what was going on at the moment.

    I'm sure he will get that opportunity again at the upcoming debate, and it is one that he should not let slip away this time.

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    by jkay on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:47:12 AM PDT

  •  Maybe I'm a Pollyanna (8+ / 0-)

    I'm sure as hell a metrosexual.  Whatever I am, I persist in believing that enough Americans can perceive the essential goodness and backbone of President Obama, while also seeing the unprincipled, entitled arrogance of Mitt Romney.  Some call it the "who'd you rather have a beer with?" test.  Around these parts, we're more likely to call it the "who isn't a ginormous dick?" test.  It can even be the "who do you want to have to see on TV for the next four years?" test.  They get decried as superficial, and they often are, but in this contest I think these questions serve our side well.  Because Romney is such a massive douchebag.  (Sorry for the jargon, but I'm trying to be precise.)

    Wholly-owned subsidiaries are people, too, my friend.

    by deminva on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:47:15 AM PDT

    •  Depends on where you drink (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tam in CA

      There are plenty of bars out there where if you walk in for a beer and start a conversation, you'll get nothing but lies. Plenty of bars where you mostly get truth too. But there's a large constituency of liars out there, who'd trust a fellow liar far more than they'd trust someone "foolish" enough to speak the truth. And there are plenty of people foolish enough to believe the liars are truth tellers, too.

      If you study the early years of the Mormon religion, the whole thing was founded around obvious lies. They founded a whole state on that principle. Doubtless the foolish believers outnumbered the liars who respected other liars, but that's an essential part of the story of what we see in Romney.

    •  That's the basic GOTV pitch. (0+ / 0-)
    •  You need to stop being a Pollyanna (0+ / 0-)
      I persist in believing that enough Americans can perceive the essential goodness and backbone of President Obama
      Try to recall some of the things that Obama did in his first term and didn't do . Much of it has to do with protecting the constitution and the rights of a US Citizen.  If you have the capability of being truthful to yourself, ask how that mesh's with your version of Obama?

      If Obama still survives the Pollyanna test, ask how people who don't think like you do will see the man especially if , God Forbid, people talked about his record. It's not what he says. It's what he does and doesn't do.

  •  I just heard Sen. Rubio say Romney's Medicare (8+ / 0-)

    plan would involve wholesale changes that would be very disruptive to anyone expecting something like Medicare as it is now. That's why his 81 year old grandmother won't have to suffer it. instead everyone else under 56 will have to make this big sacrifice. I guess so rich people can get more money.

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:47:23 AM PDT

  •  Yeah but (0+ / 0-)

    This is all well and good, and I totally agree with everything said, and I'm on the good guy's side and all, but... how exactly are facts like these going to change the minds of the dupeable portion of the electorate who will vote for Romney only because he APPEARED to have a good first debate?  Romney thinks 47% aren't gonna vote for him, but what about the 45%+ who will never vote for Obama no matter how clear this choice really is, because they're being sold a laughable bill of goods or because, simply, well, y'all know why?  I'm truly concerned about this election ending up falling in the silk napkin-laden lap of the slimy Mormon, like manna from Kolob.....

  •  Far be it from me (5+ / 0-)

    to take up for the Mitt, but I don't count this as a lie. I think he simply didn't know what Obama said in the rose garden.

    Not even Mittens is dumb enough to lie so boldly right in front of the President and the country, about something that is available on video for all to see, and knowing the President would call him out on it the minute the words left his mouth--and knowing he would look like an utter fool.

    He looked disbelieving, then horrified, then really angry, no doubt at the person or persons who didn't tell him what the President had said.

    It was kinda neat being able to watch the emotions play across his face.

    And there sat the President, looking exactly the way a cat looks after polishing off a bowl of cream.

    Facts matter. Joe Biden

    by kpardue on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:50:00 AM PDT

    •  What about the first debate? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhauenstein, DSPS owl

      Romney lied about positions Romney had taken as recently as a week before the debate. Claimed he'd never supported tax cuts for the wealthy, for example. Hardly a breath left his mouth that didn't carry a lie obvious to anyone who'd ever paid attention to anything he'd said on the same subjects before. Didn't hurt him at all. To the press, it just made him a "winner," someone ready to "do what it takes."

      •  I am not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man

        claiming he doesn't lie. I simply think that in that instance he was not lying.

        In most of his lies the truth would take more then a minute or two to disprove. Of course, we know he's lying, and certainly the President knows he's lying, but a lot of people are ill informed. And time restraints are such that some lies are difficult to disprove in a minute or two, and Ms. Crowley was always calling time, particularly on rebuttal.

        This was a different situation. The facts were readily available and the President knew that. So, he hung Romney out to dry.

        It was ignorance of the facts and his ignorance was a huge embarrassment for him. Why would a person deliberately set himself up for that?

        Facts matter. Joe Biden

        by kpardue on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:57:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  because he's delusional (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kpardue

          he is counseled by delusional advisers who believe their own propaganda. The whole team is divorced from reality. They are all conditioned to groupthink. So they tell him "never mind what you hear, Obama never said that (based on their own parsing of the rose garden speech)". So he goes out fully "briefed" and is stunned to find that there is contrary evidence out there that a lot of other people treat as "truth" Stunned. That was the look. "how can this be happening to me? ME!' WMR???

          the cult has it's own secret handshakes, and when you listen to Limbaugh enough, or to John Bolton, or other sycophants, you lose track of what the rest of the world calls "reality". So the Times and the Wash. Post (and the Denver Post, today!!!) says (in general) "stuff doesn't add up...to many assertions not backed by any facts, too much pie in the sky, too many cognitive leaps....maybe the MSM is getting scared that this could really be a catastrophe if Mitts gets elected.... and the burnout last week is just the start. Wait until after the next debate....

          Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

          by blindcynic on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:28:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What I find most terrifying is they would (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, Creosote

    have us all live in their alternate reality. I felt that in the Bush years, it would be even worse now.

  •  Reality doesn't stop Romney (7+ / 0-)

    He's a fool and a liar.

    When Romney got all excited, and wanted everyone to note that Obama at the debate had called the Benghazi terror attack a terror attack, so he could make the false point that the president had waited two weeks before first calling the terror attack a terror attack
    He gets some kind of cheap thrill from this one upmanship, as if it's a game.

    Republicans are all liars because they need to be to sell their stunted policies but Romney takes lying to a new level.

    In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

    by vcmvo2 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:50:23 AM PDT

  •  My question is... (12+ / 0-)

    why is this election supposedly so close?  A month  ago, The Stench uses the Libya event to score political points and was called on it by EVERYONE.  It was abhorrent and disgusting.  He continues to lie, and then gets caught in a HUGE blatant lie on national TV.  Why is he still in the running?   Neither Obama nor Biden  have  done anything remotely serious to damage their campaign.
    So The Stench continues  to be an apparent challenge.  Doesn't anyone  think this smells rather fishy?  Either something illegal or unethical is afoot or a large portion of the American population are just too stupid to live.

    Here's something  to ask Rethugs:  what exactly does your candidate have to do to turn you off?  Rape orphans live on camera?  Murder girl scouts?  Fuck a horse?  Shoot up heroin on False Noise?   Fist  Congressman Sissycup?

    Seriously, I want to know what it takes.

    "I'm sorry, I have no pithy, insightful, enlightening quote for my signature." --- Me

    by liberalagogo on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:51:07 AM PDT

  •  Lies have worked for them so well, and haven't... (5+ / 0-)

    been challenged by the media, or even that much by the Democrats for a long time now.  It must be a shock for them to finally start being confronted by the truth.  

    Their response is to act offended...offended?! when confronted with the truth.  How dare the POTUS confront lying liar Romney with the...Truth!  

    How dare the Democrats or the media expect republicans or their GOPer propagandists to tell the truth?  Lying has been such a great gig for them, it's just not fair to expect them to start telling the truth.  

    Lies are all they've got, and they're going to hold on to them for dear life.  Because the truth is, what the republicans and their policies really mean for the country and it's people is a very, very austere, very warlike, very divisive, and very restrictive and very repressive.

    •  That's how Con Men React (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurious
      Their response is to act offended...offended?! when confronted with the truth.  How dare the POTUS confront lying liar Romney with the...Truth!  
      and get away with it. They go absolutely wild because they know people don't like confrontations, especially the Democrats.  Standard response to getting caught in a lie is to blame the messenger, marginalize them as much as possible and shake with anger so the people they are trying to win think "huh, wonder what that's all about".

      We also have some expertise in Marginalizing truth tellers, whistleblowers and the like. I'm not sure why people find this reaction surprising. It's been used since time started. People here are acting like it's the first time they've seen it. It is devastatingly effective too. People need to get over the idea that they have some advantage over opponents by being rational and intellectualizing arguments. Your opponents are fighting with real knives and real guns. The press sees it as Thunderdome.  It's all emotion now. Raw emotion. There  are no "rules in a knife fight" and Mitt is fighting with a knife , make no mistake about it.

      Obama needs to kick Mitt in the balls.

    •  Adali Stevenson (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurious
      “If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”

      Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

      by blindcynic on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:32:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  USA Public doesn't CNTRL the airwaves any longer- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012

    Therefore the fallout snapshot described in this diary is tightly aligned with the potential fall of a great, somewhat free-to-be society-

    It doesn't have to be that way, and sites like this, and diaries like these prove so...  But it doesn't help with those who believe their victims wish to be victimizers and vice versa...  aka Blame Gamers...

    Yep we got to forgive conservatives and offer them a place in our circle of folks, or look toward theirs, regardless of any outcome on any Tuesday in November-

    And yes, Conservatives need to forgive too, and allow us into their circles, and look toward ours, if need be-

    I know I need to stop blaming those who butcher reality at the cost of public sanity, and a somewhat free-to-be society, but I am not exactly there yet...  aka I now know how to jump off, butt cannot stop circle-jerking...

    Aware; but not there; not yet anyway-

    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

    by RF on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:52:40 AM PDT

  •  true, but goddammit, (8+ / 0-)

    Why is NOBODY giving the President any credit here?

    this Romney falsehood was just too big and too ugly, with facts too obvious to ignore.

    This is true, BUT, if the president hadn't said, "get the transcript" and "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" It NEVER would have fucking happened.

    Can anyone back me up on this?

    PLEASE?


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:53:27 AM PDT

    •  absolutely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote

      he did in the second debate what he didn't in the first- call romney on his bullshit. that's why i used his line in the title- it sums up romney's entire campaign, and the gop's entire political game. get the transcript, check the facts, talk to the scientists. there are truths, if anyone bothers to check them, and romney and the gop are in opposition to them.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:24:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is why so many fundamentalist christians (9+ / 0-)

    identify with the Republican party.  
    Suspension of disbelief is necessary to watch a sci-fi thriller, sit nodding to a sermon advocating exactly opposite christ's expressed views, and listening to republicans say tax cuts bring in more revenue.
    The thing is, most people with intact cognitive abilities will be able to walk out of Blade Runner without thinking genetically engineered humans with a three year life span are mining distant planets; could lead a sermon and realize that Jesus would want us to use government to feed and heal the poor, not kill abortion doctors; and could look at immediate past history and know that tax cuts at this point do not stimulate the economy and Romney is full of shit.
    If your faith already has you believing something completely different from the actual words of it's bible, you are already half way there to Romnesia.

    These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

    by Nailbanger on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:55:48 AM PDT

  •  A Falsehood? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, wytcld, Gorette, bontemps2012

    It computed that Romney told 31 falsehoods in 41 minutes in the second debate.

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:57:07 AM PDT

  •  Republicans laying claim to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ringer, AmazingBlaise, Ahianne

    Family values, strong defense, budgets, guns, Jesus, and anything else you can think of.

    They are the authority figure. They care more than you care. They will protect you. The other party hates. Hates America, hates freedom, hates Jesus, hates the military. In short, the Democrats (liberals) hate everything that is good and they repeat it over and over ad nauseam.

    Doesn't matter if it is a lie. The electorate has been conditioned to this shit.
    Take Limbaugh. His whole premise is about knocking down the evil liberals and building up the conservatives. He makes millions doing this and people eat it up and have done so now for decades.

    Romney knows full well that for all the lies and obfuscating he employs, very little will come back and bite him in the ass. The rewards are greater than the risks.

    Remember, the people he is talking to are the people who have been conditioned to the already made lies.
    That is why this Benghazi incident has more for him to gain than to lose. The people are already conditioned to believe something else. That is what he is playing as the right wing blowhards repeat on the airwaves the never ending lies.
    Oh, and Obama is a scary black muslim, Communist, Marxist, Hitler lovin', Socialist, super duper most liberal, America hating, non Christian to ever step foot into the Oval Office.

    Did I mention he was black?

    "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

    by wxorknot on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:06:18 PM PDT

  •  good news for a change on polling; (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wytcld, Creosote

    lifted from TPM;

    President Obama holds a 5.7 point lead over Mitt Romney, 47.9 percent to 42.2 percent, according to the latest IBD/TIPP daily tracking poll released Sunday. That represents an improvement from Friday, when Obama held a two-point lead over Romney in the same poll.

    The poll sampled 913 likely voters between Oct. 15 - 20 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.

  •  This will no doubt be condemned as CT (0+ / 0-)

    but I've had the distinct feeling all along that Benghazi was supposed to be Obama's Iran hostage crisis, and that Romney has been following a script written for it -- despite the fact that the incident didn't quite play out as intended. But it's still his best chance.

  •  Your diary has brought yet another flash back to (6+ / 0-)

    the fore.  Abusive people can lie quite effectively and are often seen as the calmer and more together person when they have caused harm to others.  I will never forget however being told by the person that had physically harmed me the fabrication he had concocted to explain my injuries.  I believe the term is gaslighting.

    We are not dealing with conflict.  We are dealing with morbidly insecure people seeking oppressive power over other people.  There is no reasoning with this.  We must just stick together and not leave anyone hanging out there on their own, particularly not the President.

  •  Even more disgusting is his world view (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, Gorette

    The Nation Magazine's cover story this week was about how Romney made millions on the auto bailout that he railed against in his infamous "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" oped. Greg Palast the investigative reporter that broke the story was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Free Speech TV's Democracy Now. Greg Palast the investigative reporter that broke the story was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Free Speech TV's Democracy Now  It's well worth the watch.

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:18:41 PM PDT

  •  This Is Bullshit on *All* Sides (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anak

    Yes, Obama called the Benghazi consulate attack a "terror attack" the following morning, and again after that. Yes, Romney lied about that in the debate, denying what Obama had said. Yes, Crowley then agreed that Obama had said it the next day. Romney's big point, that he slowed everything down to repeat: pure bullshit.

    But later, Crowley tried to downplay Romney's lies, agreeing with his other point that Obama that morning said the attack came during a protest over the obnoxious movie. Saying "that's where he [Romney] was going" - even though Romney went to the "acts of terror" instead. That was some Crowley bullshit. Trying to "move the conversation along" the way she thinks is important, not Romney.

    But Obama was bullshitting, too. The question that Kerry Ladka asked:

    We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

    Obama answered with respect and concern for the diplomats, then his plan to prevent repeats and catch the culprits. But nothing about the rejected security increase request. That is some bullshit.

    I'm no "false equivalency" pusher. But this was real bullshit equivalency. Nobody answered Kerry Ladka's actual question. Everybody wants to hear only the voices in their own head that tells them they're right.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:18:42 PM PDT

    •  he did (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, Creosote

      he said it's being looked into, and there will be accountability. but even that is a non-story, because the request was for tripoli. even if it had been granted, they wouldn't have been able to do anything in benghazi.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:10:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BS (0+ / 0-)

        Eric Nordstrom, US diplomatic security chief in Libya, said that several requests for more Benghazi security earlier this year were ignored. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (overseeing Libya) Charlene Lamb's policy has been to minimize security staff. The attack happened six weeks ago; Obama had 5 weeks before the debate to learn the answer to that crucial question. In fact, since Obama did promptly increase security elsewhere in the region he doubtless learned who denied it in Benghazi, so the forced increase would actually happen properly.

        Whether or not any size force in Benghazi would have protected its staff is debatable. What's not debatable is that despite the country's security chief requesting extra security was denied. And that Obama dodged that essential question.

        Everything else is BS.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:14:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wrong (0+ / 0-)

          lamb's policy was to be turning over security to libyans and private security and didn't want to extend the tours of the teams that had been there for a third time. she also testified that nordstrom had made a recommendation, but nothing more urgent. we don't yet know all the facts, and who is right, but we do know that the recommendation never got above lamb.

          as obama said, investigations are ongoing. that's the point. some would rather assign blame before knowing all the facts. like you, apparently.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 05:00:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's It (0+ / 0-)

            You just identified who is responsible for the lack of security increase in Benghazi: Lamb and Nordstrom. The degree to which it was Nordstrom's weak recommendation instead of insistence, vs Lamb's complacent rejection, should already be very clear in Obama's office. The degree to which the CIA's bad or missing intel let those two links fail to protect the ambassador and staff in the CIA safehouse where they were killed should also be very clear. But they are clearly the responsible parties.

            The investigations have had weeks; had weeks by the time of the debate. These are investigations into documented normal operations of a few specific people all reporting within a few links to Secretary Clinton. If they don't already know who is responsible for failing to increase security, as weeks go by within which they're increasing security in response to escalating action, in the dozenth year we're at war, then that's inexcusable.

            But you keep spinning. That's surely hold Obama's feet to the fire and ensure his next 4 years are just as transparent and effective in intel and foreign security as the past 4-12 years have been.

            Because that is some bullshit.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 04:45:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  wrong again (0+ / 0-)

              until there is a full investigtion, you don't throw people to the wolves. to anyone with a basic sense of human decency, that is.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 07:20:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  After the Election (0+ / 0-)

                No, I'm right.

                You are just putting politics ahead of the country's security and instead of honesty, waiting until after the election.

                Obama and Clinton took responsiblity, rightly so, but only in words. In deeds, they are deferring their responsibility until after the election removes the consequences. And you are insisting on that.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:07:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  If I'm not mistaken (0+ / 0-)

      the request for extra security was for the embassy in Tripoli, not the consulate in Benghazi.

      "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

      by newjeffct on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:54:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The question was wrong to start with (0+ / 0-)

      There is no "Embassy" in Bengazi, it's a consulate, and the "extra security" WAS talked about for Tripoli Embassy BUT NOT Bengazi consulate. facts make a difference.

      is the way I remember it. It may seem like small points but it's not.

      Correct me if I'm wrong.....

      That and in the overall sense, the House cut funding for the whole state department for security at the outset, why doesn't anyone remember that????

      When people can't even keep Embassies and Consulates separate, and different  policies for each, they ought to be corrected to make the policies clear before slinging mud...

      Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

      by blindcynic on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:45:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks DocGonzo for the clarification (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DocGonzo

        Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

        by blindcynic on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:47:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Question Was Right (0+ / 0-)

        Discounting the question because Benghazi isn't an embassy but a consulate is a con to dodge the question. The question of who's responsible for failing to increase security in Benghazi where security failed to protect the lives and integrity of the consulate is an excellent, indeed one of the most important, questions.

        The person asking it at the debate wasn't "flinging mud". They were asking the pertinent question. That Obama dodged, Romney blundered past, and now even DKos staff is spinning to protect Obama.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 04:48:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  but Obama didn't fact check "more than half" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhauenstein

    of the govt green jobs investments went "bankrupt". It's not true, Romney knew it wasn't true, some flack walked it back later but none of that reaches too far into the multi million first debate audience. There are many who now think the entire stimulus was one big Solyndra. It was a huge choke for Obama to not call that one on the spot. He'd obviously learned his lesson in the second debate "not true" but the green investment lie has gone unchallenged.

    Obama, because of skin color and the overall demographics of the extreme Republican base (there are A LOT of them - imagine if hardcore Occupy had 20 percent of the electorate), can afford no errors. Here's hoping our ground game is unstoppable.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:19:22 PM PDT

  •  If Romney was, in fact, wrong about... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, Laurence Lewis, Creosote

    the administration's reax to Benghazi, then why are republicans so angry at Candy Crowley? Why are they fuming about the way this has been reported in the MSM?

    I haven't seen them this upset since they enacted all those laws making it more difficult to vote!
    Or when they were steamed at Saddam after 9/11...

    •  because moderators (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote

      aren't supposed to call out people on issues like facts.  It's up to the spin doctors afterwards...  (and, Republicans are still spinning on this...)

      "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

      by newjeffct on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:55:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why is it working for mitt Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhauenstein

    Romney does it because it works.  low info voters not in the depth of issues will easily be sold

    wall Street Casino is the root of the problem. Don't call them banks.

    by timber on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:21:54 PM PDT

  •  compelling case (0+ / 0-)

    for a diagnosis of delusional paranoia -- half the Republican party.

  •  say what governor? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne

  •  Truth is an endangered ethic... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote, Tam in CA

    Truth and the virtue it upholds is truly not a priority with the Republicans.  

    Speaking bluntly, the Republican party of today reminds me of organized crime.

    But what is surprising, is that they do this with such utter insult and contempt  to the American people.

    They openly insult the public by lying to them, and then expecting, and getting the vote of almost half of them.

    Is the general public really getting that stupid, that they will vote for a guy who blatently lies to them?

    You want to talk about someone with no backbone.   It is those in the Republican party who will bend to this.

    It is really a little hard to understand why.

  •  Demcrats Like Me Have Been... (0+ / 0-)

    so busy these past 4 years looking at the singular "tree" of each individual GOP lie, that we've completely lost sight of the "Forest" of lies, historical rewrites, obfuscation and obscene obstructionism perpetrated on the American public by the ceaseless billion dollar funded GOP propaganda machine.

    And we are going to lose because of it.  Lose big.

    While everyone else is arguing semantics over this lie and that, the GOP, which has been totally taken over by Fascist elements, the real, true and dangerous kind advances solidly in the minds of nearly half of all Americans.

    Fascists first create war with words - make their "enemies" in to "Other"

    Check. They've done that.

    Once they have made their enemies into other, they present vile, violent and often bloody "remedies" to deal with them.  And justify their actions as "freedom" and betterment of the "Homeland" by means of patriotic and religious fervor in the populace.

    Check.  They've done that.

    Fascists espouse the virtues of Corporate authority.

    Check.  They've done that.

    Fascist require someone or something to fear by which they can point to and blame for all their problems. Enter the scapegoats.

    Check.  They have done that.

    Fascists use the literal rule of law with the full intent of destroying the spirit of the law in a concerted effort to savage their chosen enemies & scapegoats of their rights.

    Check.  They've done that.

    Yes.  They've done that and so much more.  And we Democrats from the top down, myself included, have literally "not seen the Forest for the Trees.

    There is a very bad moon rising on the this country.

    Its an old truth but one that stands repeating,

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a Bible and wrapped in the Flag."

     

  •  Faith Based Worldview (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tam in CA

    One aspect of the conservative republican phenomenon not fully covered in the article is the tendency for that faction's worldview to be faith based.  Their outlook is dominated by assertions they choose to believe for social or economic reasons, and so the facts must be ignored.  The scientific data and the whole scientific method are discounted because we are dealing with an ideology more resembling a religion than anything else.  We cannot convince such people, we can only expose them for what they are in front of a more enlightened audience.

    Bene Scriptum, Bene Intellectum.

    by T C Gibian on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:00:47 PM PDT

  •  debate transcript is wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nowhere Man, Creosote

    Wrong:

    MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.

    So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

    MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.

    Crowley was not saying, "Let me call it an act of terrorism." She said "He did in fact, sir," then tried to move on to something else with "Let me, let me," but then decided to backtrack and clarify what she meant by "He did in fact, sir," (ie, "He did in fact, sir, call it an act of terrorism.") It was because Crowley had mangled the syntax that way that Obama asked her to repeat it.

    Corrected:

    MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.

    MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir — so let me, let me — call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

    MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.

    I think everyone gets that, but it's mildly annoying that the transcription you see everywhere is mistaken in a way that makes it look like Crowley is calling it an act of terrorism, instead of correcting Romney by pointing out that Obama had.
  •  I don't see the big deal (0+ / 0-)

    I don't see the big deal.  If he hasn't already, I am sure Mitt will soon assure us that he never accused President Obama of waiting two weeks to call the Bengahzi attack an act of terror.  So, no problem, right?

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison

    by Hotspur18 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:03:11 PM PDT

  •  Obviously the meme "The Mitt Lies" is not working (0+ / 0-)

    It doesn't matter that it's true. The fact is, this 100% 24 x 7 emphasis on Mitt the Liar isn't moving any numbers for Obama.  I would argue that supporters are not doing Obama any favors by focusing only on that aspect of  the The GOP and their presidential candidate  i.e. That they are stuck in a world of "alternate Realities" .

    There are plenty of right leaning Independents and even members of the GOP that probably would prefer not to have  Romney as President. Calling all of them Fox nuts  so out of touch that they are living in a alternate reality  is exactly how not to win an election.

    Dems historically go down in flaming defeats when they assume their audience cares about the same things they care about. They were amazed when they brought out individual stories of Health Insurance crimes only to met by laughter. Same thing with the lying Meme. It doesn't matter if it's true because the response is simple: "all politicians lie and there is no better proof of that than Obama. "

    A master of advertising once told me that to sell people on a idea or a product, you have to make them imagine  themselves with the product and it doing wonders for them. This is also called lying when no product or idea can live up to those  standards.

    Nevertheless, no one is giving anyone a reason to vote for Obama other than he Sucks less. Can they imagine themselves with disposable income again? Job security? How about a real DOJ for those who don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

    People speak in the same sweeping generalities about his next term as Romney's people do about his "potential". I still have no idea what Obama really has planned for a second term.

     He reminds me of a coach of the Indiana Football Team  back in the 70s. His name was Lee Corso. I imagine there are a few old timers here that remember Lee well. The press asked him about his plans for the upcoming season and which people  he was happiest to see return. His response? (paraphrased) " I'm most happy   about my own return".

    See Lee Corso didn't win too many ball games. He was as surprised as anyone when Indiana renewed his contract. He really had no plans because he really didn't think they would rehire him and also because he knew whatever plan he laid out would be ridiculed.  Lee had also met the point in time when Talk was no longer enough. As Dan Aykroyd said in Ghost Busters in a defeated mood  "In the real world they expect performance" .

    No doubt Obama is in a bad position. He has made it hard on his supporters to get him back in office. Worse, if one believes in the Polls, October 3rd represented a major turnabout in the trajectory of the race. The GOP is also using this turn to the maximum which is putting the Dems on defense.

    That's why I get  the feeling that there is no other plan than making sure the GOP doesn't get control of the govt. That the only plan to do that is to make Romney look so bad that people have no alternative but to vote for Obama. If it's true , people make up their minds in the last week of the election, then this constant drumbeat of "lair liar, pants on fire" is not going to help.

    There is nothing to be proud of if your candidate is tied , when he had the race in the palm of his hand, against someone who made money destroying companies, jobs and in many cases the very social fabric of the communities in which they resided. He is a piece of shit. So I can see the attraction of showing him to be a piece of shit. The problem is; it ain't working. Try something else.

    Hey, try talking about your own candidate and tell the truth. You never know, it's so novel, it may actually work.

     

  •  Quality control in politics (0+ / 0-)

    Politics will remain a cesspool until there can be some basic agreement on what is factual.  My solution to this problem is fact-checkers armed with nunchucks.  Instead of the little wrong answer buzzer like on TV game shows, the nunchuck-checker would be called in to officiate any political event and would give a good whap-whap to anyone in the middle of a Republican talking point lie.

    The format seems to work well on game shows and in sporting events, with real-time judges or referees weighing in, but I have a feeling that Republicans would want NFL replacement referees for the fact-checkers.

  •  Romney lies because he believes only in himself (0+ / 0-)

    and in his ridiculous god.  

  •  An interesting aspect of that exchange (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote

    is that it seems like Obama was deliberately provoking Romney by directly lecturing him beforehand on his inappropriate behavior, using the Benghazi attack to score cheap political points, and reminding Romney of his role as president and CIC. He went full alpha on Romney, in an appropriate way, and I think that must have driven Romney nuts. I think this was a very deliberate move, and likely provoked Romney's attempted pushback.

    Secondly, that Romney would respond to a reminder of his inappropriate behavior by continuing to try to score cheap political points on the topic is classic Romney.

  •  The sorts of voters we need to worry about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Omegaisnotjustanumber

    i.e. swing voters whose vote is still up for grabs and who thus could presumably determine who wins, are probably not going to care about let alone know who's telling the truth and who's lying here, or even understand why that matters. What they probably noticed and cared about was who SEEMED to be more in command and leader-like, and who seemed to be more meek and submissive. And I suspect that more saw Romney as the former and Obama as the latter.

    These voters, being generally not strongly ideological, politically engaged, or up on the facts--nor strongly partisan either way--respond most, I suspect, to who comes across as stronger, tougher and more commanding, based almost entirely on style over substance. They may "like" one candidate more than another, and even view them as nicer and more decent, but that doesn't mean that they'll vote for them IF they see the other candidate as "stronger".

    I'm pretty sure that Romney and his people know this, and have been waiting for the closing weeks of the campaign to unleash their "Our guy is tougher than your guy" initiative, based not on substance but on fear-based theatrics, of the sort that Nixon used on McGovern, Reagan on Carter and Mondale, Poppy Bush on Dukakis, and Baby Bush on Gore and Kerry. And now Romney's trying to do it on Obama--with a measure of dog whistle racism thrown in for insurance.

    This has nothing to do with facts, reality or substance, and everything to do with the psychology of the undecided swing voter, namely lazy, detached and naive when it comes to politics, and susceptible to effective fear-based marketing.

    And more than a little racist, however much they'd deny it.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:18:04 PM PDT

  •  And yet he is tied for the White House. This (0+ / 0-)

    country just baffles me.  I can't understand it.  How can this borderline sociopath even be remotely close to the White House?  What is happening to our country?

  •  Great piece of writing, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    I've just gotta take minor issue with the idea that Romney knew his 'gotcha' moment was a lie when he was going for it with all his ill-considered gusto. Because I think it more likely that he didn't know it was a lie - he really believed what his advisors and coaches told him, that Obama had NOT called it a "terrorist attack."

    Which is all his advisory team had left after attempting to run with some sort of Banghazi "October Surprise" that was ill-conceived from the git-go, mis-played all the way down the line, about a situation with real, serious ramifications in our current foreign policy establishment. Something Romney has no experience with whatsoever. So he relies on those advisors, all of whom are partisan hacks who also care nothing for the truth.

    Romney really believed he had the 'gotcha' completely ready to roll out, and when Obama objected, he could play it even harder. If he had known for a fact that Obama had indeed called it a "terrorist attack" in the Rose Garden the very next day, he wouldn't have run with it. Nobody as rich and thoroughly narcissistic as Romney would try to fly that big a whopper past either the moderator or the follow-up pundits. A smart narcissist - and narcissists tend to be quite bright - would know he couldn't get away with it.

    Not that I don't relish his gaffe or look forward to new ones tomorrow night. I don't expect Romney keeps all the facts, figures and/or gnarly details of ANYTHING policy-wise that is part of his rhetoric in this campaign. He has 'people' for all that. Now that he now knows he can't trust 'em, I'm hoping for some smashing Obama-side runs...

  •  Looking to seem him punked again tomorrow. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Fantastic diary LL (0+ / 0-)

    I'm in the midst of trying to explain to my 17 y/o why I am such a hard line lefty, and you're diary is rich with prime examples of right-wing phuckery to use as examples.

    In Dallas suburbia, he's facing a lot of peer pressure to believe Jesus rode a velociraptor into Jerusalem, etc., and I believe it's my responsibility to equip him with some information from the reality-based world.

    He's having a hard time grasping how in the world people can be so badly duped into voting against their interests, election after election, and I have to admit, so am I.

    Please proceed, Governor - PBO - 10/17/2012

    by tinfoilhat on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:47:51 PM PDT

  •  Please proceed, Governor. (0+ / 0-)

    I loved it when the President said that. I also loved what Jon Stewart said about it and showed a roadrunner cartoon. That was great. Romney lies and does it so compulsively he does not even think he is lying. He has so little respect or regard for people that he just cares less that he is lying. He has his sense of entitlement and thinks that he deserves to have the presidency because it is his turn. God help us if he wins (and I am still hopeful that he won't). The direction this country is going (with the voter supression) is appaliing. I wish I could go to sleep and wake up late  the night of November 6. This election is the nastiest I have ever seen and I think we have got to clean this mess up not only for this one but for the future. Citizens United is a disaster. Also, how can Rmoney be so ignorant to think people in this country don't die because they don't have health insurance. Finally, for now, Ann Romney does not deserve to be first lady. Michelle Obama has class and Mrs. Romney is a stuck up _itch. There. I feel a little better.

  •  Willard stakes out every position possible (0+ / 0-)

    on every subject possible.  So he's actually telling the truth when he says position A is what he believes and then later the same day he says position B is what's really good for the country.  Even if both positions are diametrically opposed, Willard's covered, because he's supported both in the past.

    A term exists for such people.  It's on the tip of my tongue.  What do you call a person who will change his message 180 degrees to appeal to his audience?..........

  •  Rachel Maddow had a segment... (0+ / 0-)

    on her show last Wednesday about the Republican information bubble.  Republicans and the right wing can't handle the truth so they create their own truth again and again.  Mitt's information bubble got popped in the last debate but the winger's couldn't handle that so the tried to evade the reality in the days afterwards.

    Rachel Maddow segment

    Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the unemployment rate is below 8%, the day after the Benghazi attack the president called it an act of terror. Do not confuse your World Net Daily caliber fantasy babble for what actually happened, because stuff really does actually happen and eventually you do have to deal with it.

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:13:16 PM PDT

  •  Romney is just a symptom of our new reality (0+ / 0-)

    In reality, President Obama reacted to the embassy attack like we expect a President to react. He spoke the right words. Gave the right response to the situation. And grieved with the American People. In any normal society, this would be perfectly acceptable.

    But that's not where we are today. We have had around two years of constant campaigning going on in the media. There hasn't been any "normal day" in our society since the Republicans decided to contest everything up to and including the successful election of President Obama back in 2008. So it's little surprise to see how dysfunctional facts have become during this time. Will it return back to normal after this November's election day? I fear that it's likely not going to change much. The media is too warped by the constant state of campaigning, recounts, recalls,  repeals, and supreme court interference. Bringing sanity back to our stonewalled government is the first step on the road back to reality.

    Lies have replaced sly rhetoric on the campaign trail. Tea Party factions feel enabled to flaunt the laws of the land up to and including the U.S. Constitution they claim to hold in reverence. All to justify their misguided view of justice and freedom. Whatever that last part means.

    Romney is a symptom of a vast illness which has taken hold in our political system. And we need to remove this virus completely as this election comes to a close. We need to bring all the players back to their original purpose in being elected... to serve.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:14:47 PM PDT

  •  The GOP is an organization built on obedience (0+ / 0-)

    and authoritarianism.  It isn't surprising to me that RW followers are virtually impossible to be swayed with the truth other than what the Republicans tell them to believe.  

    The GOP faithful would rather do anything in their power to make such falsehoods true even to the point of wrongdoing. Violence, public acts of disrespect or even intimidation is implemented to preserve the brainwashing by the RW. What is relevant here is the lack of questioning coupled with an attitude of self-righteousness when being confronted by outsiders.

    Since Republicans are "true believers" and won't question their  the lies of their leaders, it is easy for the GOP to keep on using their money to churn out distorted perceptions of their opposition.

    Even more tragic, the foundation of lies developed by Atwater and fleshed out by Rove has been acceptable within RW circles and in the larger popular culture due to the utter laziness of the media.

    Until we get people with more integrity in the news business, stuff like this will continue to happen.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

    by politicalceci on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:23:24 PM PDT

  •  You'd think that when Obama invited Romney to (0+ / 0-)

    proceed that Romney would have realized he probably shouldn't.

    But he is "exceptional" in his own mind so he blundered into a trap of his own making, with the blessings of his opponent.

    It also helps, if you are going to quote someone else to them, that you should read up on the quote and get it right.

    •  This is the kind of mistake that happens (0+ / 0-)

      when for debate prep, you model Clint Eastwood talking down to an imaginary, weak, unintelligent President Obama.

      Romney has so little regard for the actual President that he actually believes he is as weak, uncareful, clumsy and untested as Mitt has prove to be.

      Mitt has been getting by on bluster and retroactive re-writes of his words and deeds that he thinks everyone does this.

      So when he begins hectoring the President in what he believes will be the campaign turning point and the Ultimate Gotcha that finally brings Obama down, that he wasn't paying close attention to the President's body language and words when he said "Please proceed Governor" or when he calmly sipped his water and said, "that's what I said."

      Romney would love to fire the guy who set him up for this epic unnecessary faceplant but he can't, because that guy is running for President, for pete's sake.

      The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

      by FiredUpInCA on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  perhaps we should (0+ / 0-)

    name the movie or this alternate reality "Rise of the Lemmings". It is a fact that a single-celled organism "bacteria" can grow to overwhelm and kill its host. Bacteria routinely killed millions of humans before man started to understand that "cause and effect", when upheld by empirical data, should prevail in any world of rational thinking.
    As to lord romney, let's just call "lazy mendacity" lazendacity an synonym for romesia.

    Life is just for living - Ernie Smith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3AegEwa124 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Smith_(singer) DON'T VOTE HATE, VOTE FREEDOM

    by longtimelurker on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:32:14 PM PDT

  •  Romney tried using his Blue Steel knock-off look (0+ / 0-)

    It was like watching Zoolander again. Do you suppose he has become so used to lying, that he doesn't even turn a shade of red anymore when he is caught? It's like he didn't skip a beat and was caught TWICE by the viewers.

  •  Blue Steel look at 1:04 (0+ / 0-)
  •  How this works... (0+ / 0-)

    It's a little more than just lazy mendacity.  They actually go to a great deal of trouble with their mendacity.  They spent decades building a parallel news network, for instance, for the purpose of disseminating and making more credible their propaganda.

    But let's address this:

    As I said, lazy mendacity — even where the facts would do well for him, as in trillion-dollar deficits, he chooses instead to constantly claim that Obama doubled the deficit, which isn’t true.
    Our outrage over this is a little bit oversized.  The point of this kind of lie is to force Democrats to engage by saying, "But it's not that big!  It's this big and it's because, because..."

    See?  The only alternative is to ignore the lie.

    And yet we could do the same thing back to them quite easily.  For instance, Romney has written a book called "No Apologies," and preaches quite frequently on the subject of him never apologizing for America, etc., etc.  Now imagine, if, in the next debate, the sit down debate, if Obama casually threw out the following statement:

    This is like what Governor Romney did in the last debate, where he accused me of not taking Benghazi seriously.  Later, when this was exposed, he was embarrassed into apologizing..."
    That's not true! you shout.  Romney didn't apologize.  But let him correct that HIMSELF.  Let Romney correct it, as he must, or be pilloried to death by his base.  Let him say, "I did not apologize for that and I never will!  You said it was an act of terror, not a terrorist act..."  

    See?  Same thing.  Put him in the position of quibbling over something that no matter how he discusses it, he looks bad.  And it keeps him on the offensive.  Romney can't even be IMAGINED to apologize for that without Michelle Malkin and Rush and the others who don't trust him that much already feeling as if they are being thrown to the wolves.  They'd tear him to shred the next day!  And Romney would be forcibly drawn out into a discussion of looniness from the right about Benghazi.  It's like winning two debates with one gaffe.

    This same principle could be applied to a number of different topics.  

    To those who think we're the defenders of TRUTH and we shouldn't think this way... Uh, speak for yourself.  I'm not a liberal to defend truth.  I'm a liberal so I can get my eyes fixed and so I can stop torture.  That other holiness shit is for people with fewer problems.  It's a dirty system.

  •  Why shouldn't they lie? (0+ / 0-)

    Well except for the inconvenience of the 9th commandment about baring false witness why shouldn't the lie?  Historically the right wing has been more likely to subscribe to the ends justify the means and after all they mean good as in good family values etc.  

    They know that they are getting away with it.  (It's not a crime if you don't get caught.  Really.  I know.)  The average  voter doesn't keep up with details and especially not someone who is still undecided.  Hell the average voter can't name the Governor of their State or their Senators or Reps let alone what Romney said about the 47%.  Forty seven percent?  Forty seven percent of what?  It was an absolute fluke that the moderator blew Romney's cover and I still believe that Joe and Joan Average didn't have a clue what the finer points who said terrorism first mean.  They may have caught that there was a gotcha but what percent do you think could have explained it.  Hell fire, 17% believe Obama is a Muslim and only 25% can ID him as a Protestant for God's sake.  That's right 75% of those polled could not ID Obama as a Protestant Christian, 75%.  

    Like the Mitch McConnnell cabal that met on Inauguration Day 08 and as Tom Hartman says "swore a blood oath" to break their oath to the constitution and bring the nation down if necessary to make Obama a one term president, the Republican candidates will do and say anything it takes to make that same goal happen.  Guess what, it's working.  

    This shouldn't even be a close race.  Obama has actually governed as a moderate business friendly Republican after all.  He manages to throw just enough meat to the base to keep us from total rebellion but where has he hurt business?  Wall Street should be backing him.  

    The strategy is simple.  Defeat the president by hook or crook.   Just keep throwing shit on the wall and confuse people until the clock runs out.  Only fact finders and wonks like us keep up with the facts.  So the more and bigger they lie the tighter the race gets.  Immorality be damned.  It's working and they won't stop until they win or go down in flames trying.  

    A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

    by YellerDog on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 09:06:15 PM PDT

  •  This is why they scare me. (0+ / 0-)

    More than anything.

Meteor Blades, JWC, Mimikatz, hester, glitterscale, abarefootboy, badger, Dave the Wave, cotterperson, hyperstation, Bob Friend, DaneJaneiro, bookbear, Creosote, Justina, rhp, shanikka, Malixe, ivote2004, sidnora, dksbook, menodoc, Dube, Eyesbright, chrismorgan, The Zipper, rlharry, clarknyc, Brian82, Diana in NoVa, Vicky, Wife of Bath, eve, Gowrie Gal, vcmvo2, bloomer 101, tinfoilhat, democracy inaction, reflectionsv37, eru, lennysfo, Beetwasher, GreyHawk, Gordon20024, Burned, sunbro, rb608, Thursday Next, coolbreeze, bunsk, noweasels, xaxnar, WB Reeves, Debbie in ME, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, cybersaur, tonyahky, Gorette, smokeymonkey, jpw, Im with Rosey, raincrow, blueoasis, TalkieToaster, eglantine, 4Freedom, gpoutney, Ooooh, agnostic, SadieSue, CF Perez, betsyross, justiceputnam, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, BB10, means are the ends, kurt, Ian Reifowitz, kurious, Friend of the court, One Pissed Off Liberal, Sapere aude, BeninSC, Loudoun County Dem, greytdog, moodyinsavannah, Dartagnan, mommyof3, dclawyer06, newpioneer, bnasley, Killer of Sacred Cows, rogerdaddy, JeffW, Mr SeeMore, HappyinNM, Cordwainer, Brian76239, Involuntary Exile, VL Baker, RandomNonviolence, Missys Brother, Tam in CA, Gemina13, suesue, Steven Utley, Mayfly, kpbuick, LaFeminista, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, Bule Betawi, bobatkinson, Remediator, ringer, politicalceci, MooseHB, Denise Oliver Velez, Tortmaster, mahakali overdrive, collardgreens, smileycreek, brentbent, FogCityJohn, Sotally Tober, eXtina, estreya, eb23, LOrion, cordgrass, gulfgal98, Puddytat, DrTerwilliker, ericlewis0, dwayne, numi, slice, no way lack of brain, judiadg, fwcetus, vahana, poorbuster, BirdMom, Word Alchemy, RyanHarvey, BarackStarObama, CherryTheTart, RMForbes, chira2, MinistryOfTruth, bakeneko, jolux, ratcityreprobate, Catlady62, weinerschnauzer, Chitown Kev, Azazello, johnnr2, OldDragon, StonyB, Siri, IndieGuy, Jakkalbessie, a2nite, xenothaulus, Leo Flinnwood, Laiane, pittie70, wxorknot, raina, T C Gibian, Marjmar, Hammerhand, Candide08, MarkW53, desert rain, Dallas L, Late Again, remembrance, VeloDramatic, Neapolitan, aresea, hcfmully, TokayAsriel, Icicle68, furrfu, charlie x, pragmaticidealist, JustGiaco, Jim Domenico, ConfusedSkyes, jgumby, sparkysgal, OregonWetDog, Brian1066, pianogramma

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site