Thursday, October 18, 2012

Pants on Fire!

Politifact notes Romney's blatant lying:

The notion that President Barack Obama started his presidency with an "apology tour" is a persistent and false Republican talking point that we have debunked a number of times.

Mitt Romney is sticking to it.

The Republican presidential nominee repeated it during his second debate against Obama at Hofstra University on Oct. 16, 2012, in response to an audience member’s question about the September 2012 Libya attack.

"The president's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes," he said.

We checked Romney’s "apology" attack when he used it at the Republican National Convention  (read the rest of the entry here

I suspect the reason that member of the right wing pundiocracy are so pissed at Candy Crowley is that she called Romney out on lie when they are trying to build an entire campaign centered on innuendo, distortion and outright lies.


  1. Doesn't your health insurance offer coverage that'll help you with your obsession ?

  2. Oh that's how how you saw "We lost" in Republican-speak!



  4. Your last paragraph says it all, jeffen. The Republicans' behavior since Obama was elected has been despicable. I knew Obama was setting up Romney when he said "Please proceed"; it was a great moment when Crowley told Mitt he was wrong. I'm trying to find a video that has a closeup on Romney's lying face when he gets the bad news. If you noticed, Crowley really wasn't very clear, which is why Obama had to ask her to repeat it. I suspect she may have wanted to appear as unbiased as possible, she knew she'd be attacked by Mitt's supporters.

    1. attacked? like this?

      Jeffen, Romney didn't lie.

      Candy was obviously in the President's corner. Like most of the media

    2. Yes, attacked. Just do a Google search for "Candy Crowley debate". The vast majority of the links are negative. "Eating crow" is mentioned many times, as is her being against Romney. Go here to hear her explanation, she didn't backtrack, what she said didn't favor either candidate:

      The Washington Times is as open-minded as Fox News. Romney lost, plain and simple. Didn't you read how critical the media was of Obama's performance in the first debate? They weren't in his corner then, and they weren't giving him a pep talk.

    3. Biff- Interesting to note that you didn't correct jeffen when the next thing he wrote was "they are trying to build an entire campaign centered on innuendo, distortion and outright lies." Given the fact that you want to nitpick Obama's "acts of terror" remark, I can only conclude that you agree with jeffen.

      It's entirely possible the attack in Benghazi wasn't by a terrorist group, so why label it as such? Read this:

      And ultimately, who the hell cares what label we pin on the attackers, as long as we track them down and kill them? This is just another BS propaganda smokescreen by the anti-Obama crowd.

    4. Biff
      That's a clip from CNN where Candy reminds viewers that she mentioned where the president was right AND where Romney was right. Despite that reality, the attacks on her at Fox et al have been relentless.

      The lie in question here is about Obama's so-called Apology Tour which is a proof-free, hate-filled LIE.
      However as for the Benghazi question, I accept the president's words ("acts of terror") at face value.
      And please, I will agree not link you to op-eds at The Huffingotn Post or The Daily KOS if you agree not to send me links to op-eds at such belligerently partisan organizations as The Washington Times.

    5. Jerry Lee
      Damn, I ended up re-iterating a lot of what you just said.

  5. Geesh. He said "acts of terror". What is the complaint? If he had done anything else he would have been 'shooting first and aiming later'. Then they complain because he got bin Laden - unlike Bush who had a chance, then said he didn't matter anymore. But it was fine going to Iraq and killing for lies?

    This is nonsense. When democrats adopt republican ideas, they hate them. This isn't about the deficit, economy, state or federal rights, communism or any other label attached. This is nothing but about feeling "righteous" and that's ugly.

    I really have gotten to the point that if they want "smaller government" they should go to Somalia. It sounds like a perfect fit. They are tearing apart the U.S. government better than the Taliban could. They are the "American Taliban".

    I like living in a civil society, education, police and fire, roads, health care, with the taxes that go along with it. I want equal opportunity for all. I want more than two phone monopolies for the entire U.S.

    I do not believe CEO's and BOD deserve 500% more than the average person + corporate welfare. They need to leave if that's what they want.

  6. Cant watch em' on U.S. mainstream news, its framed so insultingly like a boxing match or football game. Democracy Now has been the only way I can handle it because they have two or three third party candidates in the studio while the so called real debate is going on, then cut back to let the others answer... What a difference! its worth if you get a chance ( or both Satellite providers etc.

    ALSO, If you do the Twitter thing (I know, but I've been having fun leading up to the election) check out some of my hack art and linked news and vidz... Paul Solger

    1. Yeah the sports metaphors can really undermine our understanding of the debates (and the whole election process).

      That said I have mixed feeling about third party candidates. In theory people should have more options at the ballot box but in practice those options just give us Reagen (John Anderson) G.W. Bush (Ralph Nader) and in Canada this dreadful man named Stephen Harper (Ignatief and Layton).

      I loved that the idea of Occupy Wall St. was to attack an institution (large financial conglomerates) rather than attacking a sympathetic-but-imperfect leader like Obama.
      I cannot believe that President Jill Stein, whatever her good beliefs are would do anything but increase gridlock in Congress and The House.
      More on this to come, I'm sure!


Thanks for clicking the COMMENTS link.
Now that you're here,I should mentions that
without reader feedback blogs slowly wither and die