The Obama campaign, according to the New York Times, has a very serious honesty problem. And, in a way, it’s Mitt Romney’s fault, they suggest. The old “Republicans made me do it” excuse is often trotted out in an election year. In 2008, when Obama put a stake through the heart of public financing—a cause liberals championed—by promising to use the system and then reneging on that promise when it became clear he would raise far more money than his Republican opponent, the Times bought the explanation that somehow it was the Republicans’ fault. (The Washington Post, to its credit, didn’t.)
But now it turns out that the 2012 Obama campaign has built its argument against the Romney-Ryan ticket on a slew of falsehoods so obvious that the Times seems to openly wonder what Obama could be thinking. The Obama campaign’s claims fall into two main categories, according to the story: (1.) Made up out of whole cloth; and (2.) based on figures the campaign knows aren’t accurate. The story beings with the Obama camp’s claims that Romney would raise taxes on the middle class and that his Medicare plan could raise seniors’ costs by over $6,000. The Times explains:
In making such assertions, the Obama campaign is taking advantage of the many unknown details of Mr. Romney’s policy proposals by filling in the blanks in the least flattering light, often relying on the findings of research organizations. In doing so, the campaign has leveled some charges that are more specific than the known facts warrant and others that are most likely wrong — though Mr. Romney’s decision not to provide more detailed explanations of his Medicare and tax proposals have made it difficult to provide a fuller evaluation of some of the competing assertions.
The outdated charge that future Medicare beneficiaries could face $6,400 in higher costs comes from an analysis of an old proposal by Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, that has since been revised, a point that President Obama himself acknowledged in a speech last week. And the assertion that Mr. Romney would raise taxes on the middle class — contrary to his oft-repeated pledge not to — is based on an independent analysis of his tax plan that found it was “not mathematically possible” for his plan to achieve all of its goals without raising taxes on the middle class.
Now, as both campaigns prepare for the first Obama-Romney debate next week, Republicans have been signaling that they plan to more aggressively question the accuracy of the Obama campaign’s assertions. The Obama campaign has run ads distorting Mr. Romney’s abortion position; Republicans and some independent groups have questioned the president’s decision to count the savings the come from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan toward deficit reduction; and Mr. Obama recently said incorrectly that Operation Fast and Furious, a botched gun trafficking case, began during George W. Bush’s administration. (A similar program was started under Mr. Bush, but Operation Fast and Furious began in October 2009.)
You have to love the insinuation that Obama wouldn’t have to resort to this if only Romney would release more information. Did Romney put out a plan that would raise taxes on the middle class? No—but that’s just not good enough. You can see how easily this game can slip into the ridiculous.
This destroys a beloved liberal narrative of the election that the Obama campaign has been more honest and high-minded than the Romney campaign. The Obama campaign’s flagrant dishonesty has reached a point at which its defenders are running out of excuses, and fast.
The editorial position of the New York Times (and Washington Post, for that matter) is that Romney must provide more details. So this reporting is useful in backing up the the position that the editorial is advancing. n nThe problem is that if we're talking about specifics, how does Obama look? Didn't he promise that the stimulus would drive down unemployment? Didn't he assure us that ObamaCare would drive down medical costs? (Maybe more people have coverage, but it's at a higher cost to everyone.) n nUntil and unless the MSM is willing to hold Obama responsible for his explicit failures, they really ought to shut up about Romney's specifics.
Two months ago I came to the following conclusions, which are worth revisiting now: n nI sometimes think that the President wants to outrage Republicans to the point of nervous exhaustion, at which point he imagines they will, I don't know, hibernate or something. . . . Every week . . . there is something else to marvel at, something more brazen, more dishonest, more cynically calculated to appeal to NO OTHER END than to his re-election. . . . [I]nsults to . . . common sense come monotonously like tracer bullets . . . . n nI am not speaking here of humdrum examples of routine political opportunism that should surprise no one. I don't mean the petty prevarications and half-truths that one might find in any political campaign. I mean statements along the lines of "My administration has grown the Federal government the least since Eisenhower." I mean flat-out falsehood, lies on such an industrial-strength scale that it is impossible that Obama and the chatterati who repeat them (on cue) CANNOT NOT KNOW that they're lying. No one could be that stupid. . . . Not even Democrats. n nLying so blatantly and on so colossal a scale, with such utter lack of shame, has convinced me that the Obama Administration in general and the Obama campaign in particular have adopted LYING AS A DELIBERATE TACTIC. Perhaps even as a comprehensive strategy for 2012, along the lines of a well-known ad campaign: "Just Say It!" Whatever it is, no matter how false it is or how obviously, plainly, and enormously it diverges from the facts of life on planet earth, "Say It!" Then say it again. If it confuses some people some of the time, then it has served its purpose. Also "Don't stop saying it until a whole lot of people object." In that case "Don't retract it unless a whole lot more people object to not retracting it." Thereafter "Pretend you never said it. Pretend that no one ever said it." Act "as if it never happened and it will never have happened." Repeat with a new and, where possible, more blatant lie until November 6th. . . . n nNo political campaign in history has lurched from falsehood to falsehood, lie to lie, calumny to calumny, as has the Obama campaign. None is even close. . . . Obama . . . is another, sort of slouching beast altogether. What Saul Alinsky could only dream of is in our midst.
Obama has created his own narrative from pieces that he picked and chose; now he wants to fabricate the Romney's narrative!!!!!!! nAs we all know, no one is allowed to check Pr. O narrative and Romney would not be allowed to check/correct his narrative fabricated by the far left.
Recently, it seems that whenever Obama speaks, everything he says–everything–is a patent, provable falsehood. The only surprise is that it has taken so long for the geniuses at the New York Times to notice.
This is what happens when you have 75% of the media shielding you and you think u can keep lying and laugh all the way to re-election. until a few honest journalist like Jake Tapper come along and expose u
Who ever wins the important thing is he can uplift the economy back to like 10 years ago. That's the only thing that matters to me. n n