Republican Lies category archive

Robert Reich explains.

Via Truthout.

Keep up with Republican attempts to steal the franchise with the interactive Map of Shame.

Via Balloon Juice.

Ed Quillen looks for its roots and wonders whether they in cutting spending:

Conservatives say they believe in thrifty government. Think how much we could save on conducting elections if only two or three people in upscale precincts, and none at all in downscale venues likely to vote the wrong way, received ballots and had the papers to prove residency . . . . With a much smaller electorate, campaigns would be cheaper, and candidate might not be as beholden to big-money donors.

It’s all about disenfranchising eligible voters.

Rachel Maddow explains why Republicans are dedicated to stealing the franchise from eligible voters. In the first seven minutes, she provides the background; then she explains the voter suppression strategies in North Carolina.

Via Facing South, which has additional commentary.

Dick Polman dissects the history of yet another Wingnut Lie.

It is most instructive.

Clarence Page, writing at the Chicago Tribune, lists the reasons why he has decided to endorse Herman Cain for the Republican nomination. A nugget:

That’s why I want to see the Obama-Cain debates. After all, there have been some times when Cain, like other expert marketers, has avoided letting inconvenient facts get in the way of his message.

For example, he said during a GOP debate that “If Obamacare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.” He said that’s because he was able to get the doctors and treatment that he needed without having to “wait six months like they do in other countries before they get a CAT scan.” In fact, “Obamacare” does nothing of the sort.

(snip)

That’s why I’d like to see Cain get his chance as the GOP nominee to face Obama in a full-blown debate. Obama probably does too.

It sort of speaks for itself, does it not?

MisterMix adds a little commentary at Balloon Juice.

Wait a minute. Leonard Pitts, Jr., has some doubts about that whole “truth” thing. Here’s a nugget:

But the fact is, facts don’t matter much to (Michelle–ed.) Bachmann. She is the avatar of a slimy ethos newly prominent in American politics and life. It is the elevation of end over means, the binding of conscience and the gagging of integrity. It is permission to say whatever outrageous thing will give you advantage, to lie your natural backside off if it will win the argument.

Facts? True believers don’t need no stinking facts.

In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Leonard Boasberg wonders . . .

Where does Perry get the notion that the Founding Fathers were states’ righters? Why does he think they assembled in Philadelphia during that hot summer of 1787 except to create a national government? Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “A nation without a national government is, in my view, an awful spectacle.”

Follow the link for the rest his list of products from the Republican nut department.

Michelle Bachmann’s lies about the HPV vaccine have been amptly reported. The best analysis I’ve seen is Dick Polman’s. Here’s a snippet:

While hosting Bachmann on Fox News the other night, Sean Hannity aired one of her “mental retardation” sound bites and said to her: “Is that one of the side effects of this (vaccine)? Because I’ve not heard that.”

To which Bachmann replied: “I have no idea…I’m not a doctor, I’m not a scientist, I’m not a physician,. All I was doing is reporting what this woman told me.”

I have no idea…There it is. On a family public health issue, Bachmann admits she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, and thinks it’s fine to recycle stuff that she hasn’t checked out.

One more time, wingnuts will say whatever they need to say to make a sale. Truth and facts are irrelevant in their world.

Republican economic theory does exactly the opposite of what Republicans say it does.

Thom Hartmann explains:

Key quote:

You can’t build an economy and a nation if the only thing you are producing is derivatives.

Excerpt from the transcript:

Exactly. I think in the end, the most crucial decision that Bush made right after 9/11 — and he said it explicitly by the end of September of that year — was we don`t want the American people to sacrifice. You know, maybe longer lines at airport check-in, but that was that. Go to Disney Land, go shopping. And there would be no taxes to pay for what would turn out to be two wars.

I think that injected a cancer into the American political culture just as you were saying. If we don`t pay for wars, why do we have to pay for anything? And I think you see the seeds now of this anti-government movement that`s in some ways paralyzing the country.

See the full contract at C&L.

God forbid that schools teach stuff.

Steve Chapman skewers climate change deniers. A nugget:

They arrive at their position by reasoning backward: They reach a conclusion and snatch at any shred of evidence that justifies it. The climate change deniers don’t like the idea of governments restricting greenhouse gas emissions, so they insist that these emissions are nothing to worry about, that scientists are corrupt and that it’s all part of a socialist power grab.

They used to uphold respect for science. Now they prefer magical thinking.

Ed Quillen of the Denver Post sends a dispatch from the front:

Instead of promoting traditional economic populism, the contemporary GOP practices cultural populism. In the Republican view, you don’t worry about the billionaire Koch brothers, not when our country confronts a clear and present threat from the out-of-touch elitists who listen to NPR and the condescending snobs who can make subjects and verbs agree. And, of course, those elitist scientists.

He notes that there can be justification for skepticism, listing “Social Darwinism,” eugenics, and several other areas where scientists went wrong.

I would note that the persons who promoted those movements were not physical scientists (such as chemists, physicists, biologists, and climatologists); they fancied themselves “social scientists,” but were actually activists with axes to grind.

In the case of Social Darwinism, the ax was justifying the wealth of the robber barons and the poverty of the working class; for eugenics, it was rationalizing racism.

Click to read the whole thing. Mr. Quillen’s concluding paragraph is a gem.