Republican Lies category archive

Door number one? Or door number two?

Noz nails it.

the term (“job creators”–ed.) drives me crazy because it’s wrong. wealthy people are not the same as “employers”. most jobs in this country are created by businesses, not individuals. you could argue that cutting the taxes that a business pays would give that business more money to hire people. but other than domestic servants, wealthy people don’t hire a lot of people using money out of their personal income. and yet when republicans trot out the “job creators” line in response to the president’s proposal to let a personal income tax cut expire, they are not talking about getting america back to work by turning the unemployed into butlers and house cleaners. it’s just a line they use to fool people by blurring the line between wealthy people and the corporations they own.

Whenever I hear a member of the punditocracy use the phrase “job creators” (with Capital Letters in the Pronunciation, awe and reverence in the tone), I can tell you exactly what will come next, word for word before I hear it.

I can, but I don’t. Because you also have heard it all before.

What Glomarization said.

Dick Polman dissects the falsehoods of the Republican “mandate is a tax” mantra. A nugget:

Politicians have been lying since the dawn of the republic. Calling them out is an exercise in futility, roughly akin to handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

But, every so often, a lie is so shamelessly brazen that it behooves us to bemoan it. Witness the Republican talking point du jour, about how President Obama has supposedly slapped a humongous tax hike on the middle class, thanks to his health-reform provision that requires most Americans to buy health coverage.

Follow the link for the post mortem.

Stray attack of the rational(e):

Upholding something under the “taxing power” does not ipso facto make it a tax. Apparently it does make it a talking point.

Field surveys the latest news in gut out the vote.

Leonard Pitts, Jr, considers zombie lies of the right wing. A nugget:

Indeed, falsehoods are harder to kill than a Hollywood zombie. Run them through with fact, and still they shamble forward, fueled by echo chamber media, ideological tribalism, cognitive dissonance, a certain imperviousness to shame, and an understanding that a lie repeated long enough, loudly enough, becomes, in the minds of those who need to believe it, truth.

That is the lesson of the birthers and truthers, of Sen. Jon Kyl’s “not intended to be a factual statement” about Planned Parenthood, of Glenn Beck’s claim that conservatives founded the Civil Rights Movement, and of pretty much every word Michele Bachmann says. It seems that not only are facts no longer important, but they are not even the point.

Rather, the point is the construction and maintenance of an alternate narrative designed to enhance and exploit the receiver’s fears, his or her sense of prerogatives, entitlement, propriety and morality under siege from outside forces.

He goes on to look at what the right wing’s imperviousness to truth implies; it’s not pretty.

The facts lean left.

That’s why the right needs lies.

Read the rest.

That’s the short version of how to lie.

Otherwise, you can end up telling so many lies you cannot keep them straight.

Like this.

“For those that are here as the children of those who came here illegally, I want to make sure they have a permanent answer to what their status will be,” Romney said in the interview, “and I’ve indicated in my view that those who serve in the military and have advanced degrees would certainly qualify for that kind of permanent status.”

That would have represented a significant departure from Romney’s previous stance, reiterated as recently as last week in a major immigration speech to Latino group NALEO, that only military service should be considered as a valid path to permanent status. Romney has vocally opposed even allowing in-state tuition for college students who came to the country illegally. By contrast, Obama’s recent executive action waives deportations for young illegal immigrants who graduated from high school, earned a GED or served in the military.

More at the link.

Steve Benen is keeping score; so far Mitt the Flip has managed to cram 21 discreet lies into this week’s campaigning. Bob Cesca summarizes.

This won’t end until the “straight” news reports begin honestly, with

Mitt Romney told another lie today when he claimed . . . .

As long as the press big boys let this slip, Mitt will continue to let slip the lies of Bain.

Speaking the truth about gut out the vote: Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai.

Via everybody Bob Cesca.

At Tampabay dot com, Bill Maxwell examines Marco Rubio’s self-serving myth-making.

Maxwell does not mince words; he minces Rubio. A snippet (follow the link for the full deal):

The 41-year-old junior senator has made himself the protagonist, the shinning star, of an instant American myth. Forget that the major event of the narrative — told in the autobiography on Rubio’s Senate website — never happened. Rubio claims that his parents, Mario and Oriales Rubio, had fled Cuba after Fidel Castro installed communist rule. Immigration records show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States in 1956 (three years before Castro won power–ed.).

The core of Rubio’s political identity is false. How, then, does he rationalize his allusion to the heroism and sacrifice of exile in his memoir’s title?

“Exile is not a time frame,” he told USA Today. “Exile is an experience. . . .”

Let us translate that last paragraph.

Hmmmmm. How about, “Because I said so, Bub”?

Also, pigs fly, because I say they do.

At the Guardian, Michael Cohen considers Mitt the Flip’s exceptional mendacity, something in a class by itself, and why reporters don’t call it out more frequently and emphatically:

Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it’s pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.

Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying – they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney’s repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. But that’s a criticism you’re only likely to hear from partisans.

(Examples of Mitt mendacity at the link.)

The Commander Guy explains why Republicans lap this stuff up:

Modern society is complicated. Understanding the moving parts is hard. Why put in the time and effort to understand how the economy works or the health care system works or what climate science is about when you can just go with your feelings? Going with you feelings is far easier. While doing hard work and learning that the folk ways don’t work in modern society is unsettling.

Remember diagramming sentences?

I don’t know if that’s taught any more, but, as English is a language of word order, it damned well should be.

Bob Cesca gives a simple example.

Eric Zorn sums up Republican campaign strategy, which is, quite simply, to make stuff up (emphasis added):

The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.

(snip)

They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, you’ll believe it.

Why do they lie? Because they keeping getting away with it.

The Philadelpia Daily News catalogs some of the results:

TO THOSE who think it’s no big deal to require a photo ID to vote in Pennsylvania, meet Wilola Lee, 59; Gloria Cuttino, 64, and Nadine Marsh, 84, who all have voted regularly for decades. Each has been told by her native state — Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia, respectively — that there is no record of her birth. As a result, they can’t get the birth certificates required to get the photo IDs now required to continue voting.

If the new Pennsylvania voter ID law is allowed to take effect at the November election, these women won’t be able to vote. They and seven other Pennsylvania voters are the named plaintiffs in the suit filed against the law six weeks ago.

And then there’s New York native Joyce Block, 89, of Bucks County, who does possess the necessary birth certificate and a Social Security card — but in her maiden name. The only record she has of her marriage to Carl Block nearly 70 years ago is in Hebrew, which wasn’t enough to get her a voter ID until her state senator intervened.

At the Chicago Trib, Dennis Byrne has a long paean to Chicago’s history of vote early, vote often. He leaves out one crucial fact:

Historically, ballot boxes have been stuffed in the counting room, not in the voting room (and more recently, in the Supreme Court).

That’s why, historically, it’s called “election fraud,” not “voter fraud.”

“Voter fraud” is a PR term to gut out the vote.

Despite what you hear in the wingnutosphere, there is no chance that Sharia low could ever trumph U. S. civil and criminal law. So why the fuss, other than to stir up hate to be harvested for votes?

Steve Chapman sees parallels between the rightwing hysteria over Sharia law and times from our history.

In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be as American as Mountain Dew.

We’ve come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief that Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.

That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts from applying Islamic Shariah law in any case.

In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tony Norman summarizes the history of attempts to restrict the franchise. He starts with the colonial period, in which only land-holders could vote, and works his way through poll taxes and literacy tests up to today. If you are unfamiliar with the history of the franchise, his article is a good three-minute cram course.

He reminds us:

Of course, these efforts were never couched in terms of disenfranchising whole classes and categories of people. In America, voter suppression is always about “ensuring the integrity of the ballot box.”

Of course, oh yes, certainly, yes-indeedy-do.