If it isn’t too painful, try to remember the 2000 presidential campaign for a moment. If you can do that, you might remember that Al Gore was persistently called a “serial liar” in the mainstream press.
Bob Somerby has a good background article on how that happened. According to Somerby, the “serial liar” meme that was built around allegations that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet or was the inspiration for “Love Story” originated in an editorial in the New York Post, the same rag that more recently went overboard churning up dirt on OWS. And as we all witnessed, the bobbleheads picked up each alleged example of the Vice President’s lies, and repeated them over and over, even after the alleged example was debunked.
What was especially pathetic, as Somerby points out, was that the so-called lies were all about trivial matters that had little to do with Gore’s policy proposals. They were just bits of trivia taken out of context, distorted beyond recognition, and then repeated endlessly by every “pundit” or reporter covering politics.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush could make claims about his economic proposals that were false on their face, and the mainstream media (except for the New York Times‘s new economics columnist Paul Krugman) said not a word. And as I remember, Krugman complained later that his editors wouldn’t allow him to say that Bush was lying.
These days there should be headlines when a Republican tells the truth, since it’s such a rare occurrence. But Steve Benen points out today that a large part of Mitt Romney’s campaign shtick amounts to repeating long-debunked lies about President Obama. So can we all call Mittens a “serial liar” now?
I think Obama’s evident personal game of saying little should be carefully implemented by his campaign staff for a couple more months to give the R’s a chance to twist up a really nice rope to hang themselves with. The voting populace has a dearth of information compared to what is available, and the retention factor is low enough to make me think that compressing the timeline of attacks is wise, since we do not have FAUX blaring our message daily into stores and public spaces.
That said, I am still amazed by the way R talking points get repeated so well by those who should know better and by those who know nothing much else. We should hire Frank Luntz. Can you imagine the consternation among the Rs?
Here’s Jonathan Bernstein, subbing for the hardest working Liberal blogger, Steve Benen, on Christine O’Donnell’s throwing in her critical ex-Wiccan support for the Mormon Mittens (yeah, that’ll help!).
She had the best quote EVAH about Mitt:
â€That’s one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.â€
I swear, you can’t make sh*t like that up!
Here’s a link to Bernstein’s piece:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/a_witch_a_witch034101.php
Bernstein’s point is that Mitt needs the support of as many crazies like her as possible.
So, can the support of Sharon Angle, Carl Paladino, and other Conservative loons (but I repeat myself) who lost elections due to the nefarious Liberals, be far behind?
After all, poor Mormon serial flip-flopping Mitt needs all of the crazy Christian (but I repeat myself again) bone-head fide’s support he can get.
🙂
I just found that line on DKos and was rushing to share it here and got out-shared! This is the leading candidate for today’s best laugh. And the irony! Oh, the irony! Please, please let this R thing last a little longer, since Colbert and Stewart are going on vacation after this week!
I’m thinking that the epithet labeling Boomers “Children playing at being adults” is right on. Why? Their inability, due to ignorance or just plain lying, to take responsibility for their actions or words. Perry ‘blames’ his back surgery on his thinking that the voting age is 21 and that the SC has eight seated justices. Gingrich blames his undying patriotism and ‘hard’ work for his multiple adulteries and House charge of ethics violations. Mittens blames his opponents for misinterpreting his past behavior/words.
(I might add the blame put on the government by the criminal element on the Street who sold sub-primes – it made us do it.)
I’m thinking that the epithet labeling Boomers “Children playing at being adults†is right on. Why? Their inability, due to ignorance or just plain lying, to take responsibility for their actions or words.
Excuse me? I’m a Boomer. I think a lot of us here are Boomers.
I enjoy reading Jonah Goldberg’s article in the LA Times, not for the repulsive Goldberg, but because of the way the commenters regularly pillory him. I won’t link to Goldberg’s 12/13 op ed “Newtzilla to the Rescue”, but one commenter summarized the GOP’s quest for a nominee (and trust me, this does arc back to the topic of your post):
Hmm. I wouldn’t blame the Boomers as a group to blame this on.
I’m a Boomer, also.
Me, boomer three!
@Felicity, you got into a lot of trouble with that remark. Boomers are, I suspect maha’s prime demographic, the sweet spot of this blog. I thought I’d get a lot of grief talking down Gen Xers a few days ago, but nary a peep.
As far as Romney’s lying, it occurs against the background of the GOP noise machine, which is all about lying and distortion, so it’s difficult perhaps to separate Romney’s own history from the background noise produced by the machine that he’s a part of.
That said, I personally have known weenies, born into wealth, who will say whatever they need to say to keep their position. Truth is fungible, if it exists at all, in their eyes. I’ve barely studied Romney (why?), but he comes across as a weenie through and through, and so I’m not at all surprised that he utterly lacks the courage to say the truth and stick with it.
Boomers (and I’m one of them), like all generations, have their good and bad points, and there are not a few of them who do indeed play at being adults. But I think Romney’s particular difficulty with the truth has more to do with his misfortune at being born into wealth and deciding to become a weenie in response.
I think of us as a virtual geezer collective.
Newt’s a boomer also, but Calista is just a generation X adulteress.
Great line, Swami!
Mitt’s on the attack against Newt..He really stuck it to Newt hard by calling him “Zany”. With all the adjectives that could be rightfully applied to Newt I don’t think zany is gonna get under Newt’s skin any. Randy, sleazy, chowder head, blow hard, air bag..thief, lecher.. El rotundo ..blob. It’s no wonder they call Mitt mitttens.. Gingerly attacking an impenetrable ego like Newt’s with words like zany just don’t cut it.
Mitt needs to press Newt’s ethics violations issue..after all, $300,000. in fines for ethic violations could make one question whether Newt might have some minor ethics issues.
Swami,
Zany?
Mitt looks and sounds too much like the 1950’s sitcom TV. Kind of like Ward and the whole Cleaver Clan if they were Mormon.
Personally, I like “sleazy.”
Or, in long form – how about ‘Newt’s a Loquacious Double Extra-large Lothario?’ Or, more simply for the rubes, “A Large, Double Extra Large Lounge Lizard.”
I knew I’d get a rise from my ‘boomer’ post. Even though I actually lifted it from someone else (whose credentials I admire but can’t remember his name – I’m 80, remember) it’s pretty obvious that from Wall Street to K Street to the halls of Congress to the present slate of Republican hopefuls, the refusal to take responsibility for past actions etc. is blatant. And I equate that tendency with children.
At the same time, my generation, for some inexplicable reason, is being called the Greatest Generation, for reasons I find completely fallacious. So, you see, my criticism can also be self-directed, if that makes you feel better.
I heard a bit of a Mittens speech when he opened his campaign early this year. He was ALREADY going negative, slamming Obama left and right. Any outside observer would have immediately arrived at the correct conclusion that he was a turd without a coherent plan of his own.