Monday, October 08, 2012

Liar Liar Pants On FIre

The President and his minions have been very careful about calling candidate Romney a liar or a felon.  They've well  learned the art of parsing a word or phrase, probably from Bill Clinton.

As they are quick to point out, they've never directly called him either.  It's always, "if he did or said such and such he may be a liar, felon, whatever."  But the damage has been done.  The words sit there like a rock and I'm not referring to may.

The poor guy can't win.  Or maybe he can if voters are getting tired of character annihilating accusations.  Or insinuations.  First they blasted him because he never laid out his policies.  That wasn't quite true, they were just so complex they were difficult to articulate in an easily understood manner. Now that he's actually saying something he's lying.  Sheesh!

Politics aside, it's time for it to stop.  It won't of course because when challenged the administration has to run from having nothing concrete with which to counter.  They've tried quoting experts from outside the administration but when they parse what those experts have said, they're beginning to come forward and say, "Wait a minute.  I didn't say that!" Oops.

We're down to the final weeks of what has been an agonizingly long and dirty campaign.  Neither side can claim the high road. Some of Romney's fellow Republicans have been his worst enemies. But lets stop demeaning one another.  Whoever wins is going to be the President of the United States.  The supposed leader of the free world. What sort of image are we portraying to the world, especially our enemies of which it seems we have more of than friends, when we're calling our potential leader a liar at best and a possible felon at worst.  It's bad enough to be detached, disinterested, arrogant, naive and everything else that has been directed at Obama. It's insulting and only a certain number of voters will agree anyway. Still, it's no where near the level of being called an outright liar or likely felon.  That insinuates corruption at the highest level.

I don't think even Obama views being more equal with other nations in quite those terms.

I also wonder about the surrogates that sling that mud.  It's shameful and disgusting.  If those speaking for the candidates can't present a convincing argument for their own candidate without stooping to that kind of rhetoric I can't help wonder why they support him in the first place.

Or is this what we've become?  A community that makes decisions on inflammatory rhetoric, and yes, lies,  rather than substance and fact?  If this is the case it's no wonder the country is in such a mess.



2 comments:

Margie's Musings said...

They are equally guilty of mudslinging.

Unfortunately, studies have shown mudslinging works.

I watch Politifact.com and FactCheck.org for the truth on both their remarks.

Romney has no idea what he is talking about in foreign affairs. Peace in the middle east is not as easily accomplished as he thinks.

ROMNEY: "I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the president has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new president will bring the chance to begin anew."

THE FACTS: With this statement, Romney has moved toward the balance enshrined in U.S. policy from one administration to another on the question of Israelis and Palestinians and away from his provocative remarks to a May fundraiser that recently came to light.

In those remarks, he said "the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace," `'the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish," Palestinians are "committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel" and it would be "the worst idea in the world" to put pressure on the Israelis to give up something in hopes Palestinians would respond accordingly.

Now he is appearing to put faith in a negotiation process he all but dismissed before.

Alan said...

Well said, Mari! Wouldn't expect anything less from a fairminded and sensible person. Wonder what dynamics may change if presidential campaigns were shorter, say a reduction to 60 days, and each candidate could only present his/her platform without attacking their opponent? Then, of course, let the people/voters decide the outcome instead of gimmicks and catchy sound bites...