Romney’s Inexplicable Debate Fibs
Mitt Romney’s generally strong debate performance was marred by two small and inexplicable shadings of fact — moments that left reporters, rivals, and allies shaking their heads and wondering why he he couldn’t just give a straight and obvious answer to relatively trivial questions.
The first lie was that he had dropped out of politics and gone back into business in 2006, when he left the governor’s office, when in fact he ran for President. In another obvious fib, he at first claimed he hadn’t seen a particular campaign ad, and then seconds later he described the ad.
So I did some googling, and there are all kinds of articles on the Web describing pathological liar as someone who lies habitually, or reflexively, because he just prefers to. Here’s one:
A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually thought to develop in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary. For the most part, compulsive liars are not overly manipulative and cunning (unlike sociopaths), rather they simply lie out of habit – an automatic response which is hard to break and one that takes its toll on a relationship (see, how to cope with a compulsive liar).
There are several kinds of pathological liars, and IMO Romney sounds more like a habitual liar than anything else:
Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it’s a lie or not, it’s simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about it, he/she knows clearly it’s a lie.
Now he’s going around telling audience he knows what it feels like to be afraid of losing a job. Huh?
There’s something seriously wrong with this guy.
This:
it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it’s a lie or not, it’s simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary or even opposite to his/her own needs.
Sure sounds like Romney to me.
The real Romney?
RomneyFacts.com
Romney’s Rap Sheet
Subject: Romney Willard Mitt
Summary
Subject Romney has been arrested on two occassions, in Massachusetts and Michigan and per Utah law enforcement been verbally abusive with Sheriff’s deputy there. Known associates are currently under investigation for impersonating a police officer and fraud and money laundering.
More (names, specifics, references) at:
http://romneyfacts.com/issue_rap.php
Did Romney berate two persons authorized to direct traffic? Did Romney engage in an obscenity-laced tirade? Did Romney twice drop the f-bomb? Did Romney berate an officer? Did Romney abuse an officer?
Should all the cops or Romney be believed? And what about the “known associates” per the Issue Brief?
How could Romney blame thMassachusetts Democratic Party? Did the MA Dem Party plant the cops or tell them what to say?
The MITT 3.0 cyborg either needs a reboot or a software upgrade.
On a serious note, he should be a little bit worried that the MSM is starting to notice. Usually, they provide cover for Republicans and screw the Democrats – like Gore and Kerry, while giving that insecure, petulant, and moronic little sh*t, W, a pass.
If the poor little rich kid decides to wear earth tones, or there’s a photo of him windsurfing, it might cause a feeding frenzy.
Nah, who am I kidding?
They’ll do their best to made this cyborg seem like a middle class American.
Sounds like every republican I’ve heard or know.
Of the current plague of R contestants, Romney is less worrisome than Huntsman, who has not got the clearly visible cloud of disqualifiers that trails Romney. Romney is highly beatable. But Huntsman, who supports the Ryan Plan, is less easy to defend against. If he gets any traction, he will be more believable, more human, and more reasonable-seeming.
Mittens’ history with Bain is enough to show what he is really all about. The failure of the media to dig on Romney is not bothering me, as it leaves all the negatives fresh for the real campaign.
I hope Mitt becomes the R. nominee, because Mr. Moneybags is probably the best phony public servant they can offer these days. Plus it’s so much fun to see a worm like Newt accuse him of dishonesty.
I declare, some reporters do seem to be chipping away at all the facades.
Huntsman, who supports the Ryan Plan, is less easy to defend against.
The 30 seconds of Saturday night’s debate that I was able to stomach involved Huntsman giving a sane and seemingly fact-friendly answer to an economic question (not involving Social Security). I was so startled by his lack of drooling, I thought maybe I’d tuned to the wrong channel. Huntsman’s relative sanity is indeed seductive.
joan,
Don’t let him fool you.
Compared to John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer who only kills a baker’s-dozen of boys isn’t exactly an Eagle Scout – he’s still a serious serial killer.
Huntsman is just “Reactionary Light” when compared to the rest of the full-flavored crazies – won’t taste great, just less filling of ‘teh crazee.’
It seems to me that they also don’t know they’re lying. How could Hillary, fore instance, know she was lying when she said, twice, that when she and Chelsea arrived in Bosnia years ago they were met by a barrage of bullets streaming over their heads as they ran from the plane to the reception area. There were probably a hundred people, including reporters who traveled with her, at the scene to directly refute her ‘story.’ Would she have told it if she knew it was easily refutable? I don’t think so.
She also told a reporter who asked her where her mother got the name ‘Hillary’ that her mother named her after the man who conquered Everest. Of course the reporter ‘checked’ the story and discovered that she was born about 5 years prior to Hillary’s feat. Easily checkable, easily refuted. Would she have told that ‘story’ if she knew it was easily refutable? Only if she was incapable of knowing that she was lying.
You remember the Bush administration people lying like this even when there was no particular reason to lie. Remember the British Airlines plane they “saw” on the way to Bush trip to Iraq? The one that wasn’t actually there? One example of many: they lie even there is no reason to, and the truth is easy to find.
One reason is our press has typically allowed Republicans to get away with this, and that’s been going on for several decades now.
OT – but worth a minute – why one person is leaving the Republican Party and is endorsing President Obama.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/01/08/guest-post-why-im-leaving-the-republican-partyand-endorsing-president-obama/
It’s likely considered discriminatory to say so, but I think the habitual lying has to do with his religious background. Mormonism is the religion of spin par excellence, as anyone who’s had much contact with faithful Mormons discovers. Romney’s behavior all fits the model of a Mormon relating to non-Mormon “Gentiles,” as we’re called. Certainly such duplicity exists all over the place, including in religions of various kinds, but with the Mormons, it’s systematized. There has to be some sort of training that occurs with them about how to present the truth, how much of it to let out, and how to creatively avoid telling it when it would reveal the more embarrassing aspects of their religious mythology. And then the tactic they all use of a kind of shrugging it off when caught. The chilling thing is that this behavior is recognizable all the way from highly placed people in their church all the way down to little Mormon kids. Ask Mitt Romney OR a 12-year-old Mormon youth about, say, what the special underwear is about or how many wives God has, and you’ll not only get an identical answer, you’ll get the identical method of avoiding telling you much, and the identical line about how “Oh, don’t all religions have their unique mythologies?” once you get them to admit that God’s a polygamist. It’s very creepy.
Dave,
Maybe you’re right about the lying.
But all religions DO have their own unique mythologies.
I’m not a believer, but in my Russian Orthodox religion, we do the same transubstantiation thingy that Catholics do, and people think they’re noshing on Christ’s body and slurping his blood.
So, after that, I don’t think magic underpants are all that weird, or that God might like having more than one babe around – I mean, if you’re God and can’t get some different nookie, what the Hell’s the use of being G-O-D?
c u n d gulag: Completely agreed about all religions having their mythologies, but the point about the Mormons is that they spin theirs in a way and to a degree I’ve not seen others do–and like I said, the spin method is, creepily, uniform. It’s just what I’ve noticed. I happen to be Orthodox too (and would dispute that we share the Catholic view of transubstantiation…) but I’d assert that you don’t find every Orthodox Christian trying to hide the facts about his faith in the way Mormons do. I don’t mean to trash Mormons per se, and there are likely fine people among them, but this phenomenon of spin is really remarkable with them. And I think it says something about Mitt.
No argument from me, Dave.
My older female cousin, a Phi Beta Kappa, married a Mormon farmer, had a daughter, and they’re still together after over 30+ years. I still don’t understand that one – but, he’s a good man, and strong as an ox, so I’m not about to question his religion – and I’m hardly tiny myself, being the size of an NFL Linebacker – if you could substitute fat for muscle, that is! 🙂
But, from what I remember, the transubstantiation stuff is the same, except the Catholics use wafers, and we use poofy bread cut into pieces. We both drink the vino. But, I could be wrong, since, like I said, I’m not religious.