Election 2012

The Weirdest Reason Yet to Vote for Obama: In Defense of 'Truth'


Nice guy, in my experience

There is a powerful meme afoot within some corners of the political press claiming that a vote for the incumbent president of the United States is an important victory against the weasely purveyors of "post-truth." Here are five recent samples from the genre.

David Corn, Mother Jones:

Election Day will say whether Romney has indeed brought about the complete triumph of post-truth politics. In a Seinfeld episode, George Costanza famously observed, "Remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." In Romneyworld, that line might be modified: It's not a lie if it works. As significant as Tuesday's outcome will be for this much-divided nation in determining future policies regarding the economy, present and future wars, abortion rights, climate change, the social safety net, and much more, it will also provide an answer to a critical bottom-line question: In politics, does reality matter?


Greg Sargent, Washington Post:

Within 48 hours, we may find out whether a "post truth" candidate can be elected president.

If there is one constant to this campaign, it's that Romney has startled many observers by operating from the basic premise that there is literally no set of boundaries he needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of his assertions, the transparency he provides about his fundraising and finances, and the specificity of his plans for the country. […]

But the key to this is how elemental it has long been to his campaign. Romney's entire bid for the presidency rests on a foundation of evasions and lies.

Thomas Edsall

Thomas B. Edsall, New York Times:

An equally significant development has been the strategic decision of the Romney campaign to set new standards in the use of untrue campaign claims.

The ultimate test case of whether it is possible to lie and get away with it will be the outcome in Ohio, where Romney is running ads in open disregard of the truth. […]

If Romney wins Ohio, every campaign in future elections is going to give much more serious consideration to lying and to open defiance of media rebuttals as a legitimate campaign expedient.


Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic:

Romney's distortions and evasions have been so frequent, and so central to his campaign, that the blogger Steve Benen created a weekly feature on them called "Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity." Last week, in its 41st edition, included 33 separate items. And it's not just liberal writers who have noticed. Paul Ryan's infamous convention speech was something of a watershed moment: Confronted with multiple and obvious distortions, the media reacted by reporting that Ryan was not telling the truth. […]

The message couldn't be clearer. Romney and his advisers don't care about consistency, transparency, or candor. And they think they can get away with it. Are they right? We'll find out on Tuesday night.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Washington Post:

Election 2012…was the year of "post-truth." For the first time, the idea emerged that political lying simply didn't matter. This is a profound theological issue.

One political party, the Republican Party, put out statements and ads that were lies, that is, proven to be factually incorrect, and simply said it didn't matter. And they did it over and over again, while denigrating "fact-checking." The Romney campaign declined, as one surrogate said, to let their campaign "be dictated by fact-checkers."

A false equivalence emerged, where media outlets  often chose not to pursue the policy of repeated, systematic and deliberate lying by the Romney campaign and chose instead to focus on 'they both do it.'

Except human beings named Mitt!

Rev. William E. Alberts, Counterpunch:

This cynical pretense of caring for the hurricane victims is merely a continuation of lies that have paved Mitt Romney's presidential campaign from the beginning. […]

The innate, natural, humble, innocent honesty of children prepares them to know whether or not another child, or adult, is telling the truth.  The ones who tell them the truth become good friends.  Those who lie to them are never to be trusted.  The ways of a child are wise indeed, and to be reclaimed and emulated by us adults

Trust is a matter of truth.  American democracy desperately needs a new motto: In Truth We Trust.

There is one main problem with this line of argument, and he lives in the White House. For details on President Barack Obama's lying, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for starters.

So how does the Mitt's-lies-must-be-repudiated chorus deal with the man who has actually wielded power these past 46 months? Get ready for some comedy after the jump:

Sargent, Brooks Thistlethwaite, and Albert simply turn the other cheek and don't consider the president's record at all. Cohn at least offers a few presidential examples, but wraps them up in a larger-truths bow:

All politicians say misleading things. And that includes President Obama. He never misses a chance to quote the headline on Romney's infamous op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," even though Romney didn't write the headline and Obama himself ended up putting the companies through bankruptcy. Obama's ads have attacked Romney for outsourcing at Bain, even though much of the outsourcing took place after Romney left—and the long-term, macroeconomic effects of outsourcing are a matter of legitimate debate. Obama routinely attacks Romney for threatening to leave seniors at the mercy of insurance companies, even though Obama's own health care plan relies heavily on private insurance to provide coverage to non-elderly Americans.

But even when Obama's claims have gotten specific facts wrong, they have told a larger story about policy that's true.

David Corn at least has the decency to add to this long-running assertion some actual numbers, which he then proceeds to waterboard:

Of the 202 Romney statements PolitiFact has evaluated, 32 percent were judged mostly false and false, with pants-on-fire statements accounting for an additional 9 percent. Of the 452 Obama assertions reviewed, 26 percent fell into the false or mostly false category, and 2 percent were pants-on-fire untruths.

The numbers tell only part of the story. This is what's most intriguing: Only three of Obama's seven POF fibs targeted Romney. […]

Romney's stats reveal a different a trend: All but one of his 19 pants-on-fire statements were aimed at Obama or his policies. And they were all supersized fibs

Note that Obama is getting extra credit here for lying about other stuff besides his political opponent. But isn't that, um, worse? Like, if you were getting all sanctimonious about politician-lies, wouldn't you reserve your strongest venom for lying about actual policies being enacted, rather than distorting a competitor's agenda on the campaign trail? And is a single-digit percentage-point spread on a decidedly unscientific sample compiled by a mainstream media outlet really the hook you want to hang this particular hat on?

The "post-truth" commentariat, in my experience (which is not exhaustive), is using assertion and anecdote to make a heavily political accusation during the heart of election season. Considering how central they claim post-truthiness to be both in their own moral calculations and in their portrayal of the Romney campaign, you would think (or at least hope) that they'd bring a little more evidence to the fact-party.

NEXT: Louisiana House Race May Not Be Decided Before December

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. http://90days90reasons.com/98.php

    The morons at 90 Days, 90 Reasons seem to be under the impression that Ronald Reagan started a war. Unless they are counting Obama as an honorary Republican for Libya.

    1. God almighty. This is like reading a Jizzabel post.

      Romney winning would be worth it just so these mendacious assholes could pretend to be anti-war again.

      1. Nothing would be learned by it. They would become anti-war, anti-wiretapping, anti-droning with no sense of irony… what…so…ever.

      2. They also seem to have forgotten their Messiah’s talking point that the Persian Gulf War was a good war because we had Germany and France on our side.

    2. I guess the 500,000 dead Iraqi children Clinton starved with the sanctions don’t count.

      1. That number is as much bullshit as anything ever uttered by the UN.

        1. Maybe, but we’re still talking numbers in the hundreds of thousands based on the varying reports I’ve read.

        2. Given palaces were being built in Iraq at the time I was pretty skeptical. Still we should let a war crime tribunal decide. As bad as Madeleine Albright’s answer was in her 20/20 interview she’s likely to hang herself in her testimony like Eichmann even if there was no case to be made. Then the lulz as Bush I and Clinton administration leaders are executed.

        3. Perhaps. But I wonder what the upper limit of starvation is acceptable?

        4. Maybe, but Not-So-Bright basically acknowledge the number, saying that it was worth it.

        5. Except Madelaine Albright accepted those numbers publicly. I guess she was lying to smear Clinton.

      2. Which reminds me, whatever happened to those studies which rocked the media world that suggested (using some kind of space-age statistical sampling technique) that a hundred trillion Iraqis had been killed in the general ‘hostilities’ during Bush II?

      3. Also, Bosia-Kosova was already going on… and Somalia? We had good intentions. Yeah, we occasionally rocketed whole groups of innocent people and killed 1000+ somalis in a botched raid, but hey = they were there to defend a *humanitarian* mission.

        And I’m glad Roosevelt, Kennedy & Johnson never got involved in any silly overseas adventures. Or Woodrow Wilson.

        The “reality” that progressives subscribe to is that they are the ‘party of peace’ and always have been. The ‘truth’ that they’re SOOOOO much better on the whole ‘not killing people’ thing is a necessary accessory in their mental fashion ensemble.

  2. “In a Seinfeld episode, George Costanza famously observed, “Remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.” “

    If any statement ever summed up Mother Jones . . .

  3. Looks like the Journolist crowd coordinated its meme.

    1. The hive mind at work.

      1. The ever-present TEAM BLUE projection as well. They’re abject liars, so their opponents are, not them.

        That it happens to be true doesn’t reduce the irony of their utter self-unawareness, though.

    2. Exactly.

  4. Considering how central they claim post-truthiness to be both in their own moral calculations and in their portrayal of the Romney campaign, you would think (or at least hope) that they’d bring a little more evidence to the fact-party.

    I like to think of it as a sign that in the event Romney wins tonight they are once more ready to resume their role as skeptics of the governing regime and after a four year retirement are ready to pounce on that role like Foreman in his triumphant return to boxing.

    1. Or, possibly, it will be their kind of psychological self-condolence i.e.:

      “*sigh* how CAN we elect good leaders if the average person is so easily led astray by lies?”

  5. I’m tired… so very, very tired.

    Today on NPR, life imitated art. Someone (prominent enough to be quoted by NPR) made the argument that it’s not wise to switch horses mid-stream.

    They said that. On the radio. On NPR. Those words. Came out of their mouth. And there was no laugh track.

    1. You could get your English riding boots muddy if you do that.

    2. Wag the Dog is a criminally underrated film.

    3. “Ray, I thought you said switching the horses mid-stream was bad.”

      1. “Let’s say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of political bullshit. With Obama in the whitehouse, it would be a Twinkie… thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.”


    4. And I’m sure this person voted foor Bush in ’04 based on that very same rationale.

  6. What the fuck?!?!

    Romney, a politician lies, to get into office…and the sun sets in the west.

    Were these imbeciles born yesterday?

    1. No, but they vote like it.

  7. Hey Edsall, how do you claim ” the Romney campaign to set new standards inthe use of untrue campaign claims.” and then link to a Politifact post that lists just as many “lies” from Dems as from Reps, especially when the Romney lies were untrue from a certain point of view while the Obama lies were complete falsehoods.

    1. especially when the Romney lies were untrue from a certain point of view while the Obama lies were complete falsehoods.

      Yeah, like Darth Vader betrayed and murdered Luke’s father!

      But in all seriousness, it is stunning to see not just the hacks on 50 reasons or the Kos doing this, but journalists from major, mainstream newspapers so blatantly go into the tank for the president when his opponent has very little substantial policy differences.

      1. It’s not stunning at all. We knew they were this intellectually bankrupt. They show us every fucking day.

        1. This is an opportunity, as many of the old guard corporate, journalistic entertainment outlets are already intellectually bankrupt, and soon to be economically bankrupt.
          The are many bumps in the road on the way to liberty. Don’t let liars get you down, whether they are Hannity or Huffington.
          The shills depend on hair-splitting the evil they endorse and seek some absurd tangent to rationalize the macro reality — Bush and Obama and Romney are all one and the same.
          Step by step, the old paper guard will fade into irrelevance.

          1. That there is poetry. Need to commit them words to my chest thumpy.

      2. It’s hard to tell the difference these days.

    2. Bullshit.

      Romney repeats the lie that Obama promised to half the deficit (true) but instead doubled it (a lie).

      Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and it is now $1.0 trillion.

      1. Shrike, the 09 budget deficit was originally about $500 billion before emergency spending. Obama had been campaigning on that promise before TARP and everything else.

        1. Under White House projections, this year’s inherited budget deficit of $1.3 trillion will be cut to $533 billion by fiscal year 2013, the end of the first term.

          Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z2BUWqrGDU

          I can give you the CBO link if you like. The CBO called the 09 deficit in Jan 09.

          TARP was off budget.

          1. TARP has nothing to do with it. Obama inherited a deficit that was under $800 billion. The porkulus and a subsquent $400 billion spending bill in February 2009 sent it soaring to $1.2 trillion.

            I’ve pointed this out to you before, so I think it’s safe to say you’re just a fucking liar like your mancrush Barky.

            1. On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

              1. But there was no budget at the time. Obama signed it in March. The Democrats intentionally delayed it so they could get a “better” bill more to their liking.

          2. I’m talking about while he was campaigning

      2. Even the Obama administration doesn’t lie as egregiously as you, you retarded fuck.


        1. So today’s deficit is $1.1 trillion instead of the $1 trillion I claimed?

          Is that all you have?

          Still less than the last Bush deficit.

          1. The last “Bush deficit” was $800 billion. Cutting it in half would be $400 billion, if my calculator is right. Comrade Barack ain’t getting anywhere close to that.

            1. Bullshit.

              On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.


              1. That must include the $400 billion supplemental appropriations the Democrats passed and Obama signed in February.

                1. No, it was reported in Jan 2008. How could it include Feb 09?

                    1. Then apparently that $400 billion Obama, Pelosi and Reid spent in 2/09 had no effect on the deficit?

          2. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and it is now $1.0 trillion.

            You were off by 50%, you dishonest piece of shit. You were off by $100 billion, out of the $200 billion you stated. And you’re calling Romney a liar. Fuck you, hack.

    3. The one time I investigated a Politifact “fact check,” it was clear they were Team Blue shills. Romney quoted a CBO estimate that said “up to X billions.” Politifact said that while the CBO did indeed say that, and Romney did say “up to,” they felt that the eventual number was unlikely to be that high, so they rated Romney’s statement as “untrue.”

      I mean, WTF?

      1. They pulled a similar stunt on at least one Ron Paul statement. Their standards are inconsistent at best.

  8. David Corn is a fucking idiot.

    No, no, I’m sorry, I take that back …

    David Corn is a MUTHA FUCKING idiot.

    That is all.

  9. Matt Welch is lying.

    Romney famously said not to provide GM/Chrysler DIP financing (maybe around $50 billion).

    His exact quote was “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.” also — “In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

    Romney was for a Bain style liquidation of GM. (NTTIWWT)

    NO ONE in the middle of a credit crisis was going to pony up $50 billion except the US government.

    If Welch was a truthful libertarian rather than a Romney apologist he would oppose the government check rather than shill for Romney.

    1. I oppose Welch lying about shilling for a lying Romney who was countering the lies of the Obama administration about the GM bailout.

    2. Most amusing. I’ll drink to that nonsense.

      1. Just admit you’re incapable of discussing the subject.

        For once (and the only time) Romney took the LP position and people are claiming his nonexistent “bailout” is commendable.

    3. Romney was for a managed bankrupcy, with the government providing guarentees for DIP financing, as opposed to providing the money directly. That’s barely a hair’s breadth difference from what Obama actually did.

      1. So the government would co-sign? I would take that deal.

        Have you ever co-signed? It is your ass on the line.

        No one with tangible assets would co-sign. They would be in the hole for decades with real assets at risk.

        Romney was blowing bullshit bubbles and you know it. He knew what chapter 7 and 11 are but he wouldn’t talk about them.

        1. And Obama strong armed the creditors into accepting a plan that favored his political allies in front of the secured investors.

          1. That must be the fre market solution, since Shriek is a free marketer and he thinks the guy that pulled that is just dreamy [sigh]

    4. NO ONE in the middle of a credit crisis was going to pony up $50 billion except the US government.

      Oh well. Bye, bye GM.

  10. We are truly living in Orwellian times. The words “Obama” and “truth” don’t belong on the same page, much less in the same sentence.

  11. Cohn at least offers a few presidential examples, but wraps them up in a larger-truths bow

    That’s a fairly popular leftist tactic: “the facts don’t matter, it’s the narrative that counts”.

  12. This is like an irony singularity.

    1. Yeah, TEAM BLUE takes lying, distortion, misrepresentation, and delusion to an art form but it’s only TEAM RED that does it.

      The really frightening thing is many of them actually fucking believe this.

      1. No, no, they’re reality-based, dude.

  13. There is currently 1 vote for Gary Johnson in NH according to this Politico map. Just wanted to give one of y’all a chance to see your vote.

    Watching election results come in is a weird compulsion I should really work on replacing with something less harmful to my health. Maybe now’s a good time to commit to that cocaine habit.

    1. Well, it’s not mine because it’s from Carroll County.

    2. I, personally, would be thrilled if Johnson carried 2.3% of the popular vote.

    3. So this libertarian stronghold called New Hampshire, voted for Obama… oh wait, electoral votes. Never mind. Anyone know what the popular spread is?

      1. In the link: 28/14/1 total votes recorded in NH.

        Thanks for the link, Dagny. Much better than CNN.com

        1. I thought those were the electoral votes. I saw something like 400,000 popular votes cast, but didn’t see the breakdown. Eh, not important. I know only one thing: Who’s not going to win.

  14. Romney daily repeats the lie that Obama went on an “apology tour” when there was never an apology issued to anyone that year/tour.

    Obama said the US was “arrogant” – NO SHIT! WE STILL ARE!

    1. So you’re arguing about the charactrization of Obama’s groveling as apologetic?

      1. He never apologized, you idiot.

        “Hey bitches! We are arrogant MFers!”

        1. No, he just badmouthed the nation he led in country after country.

          But that’s not an apology…noooo.

          Surely you can crank out a Politifact link, Bubba.

  15. We already have a president who will come out and blame an obscure Youtube video for the assassination of our Ambassador knowing full well the whole time that said video had nothing to do with it.

    But that’s not really lying, Obama knows what’s best for us! He’s just protecting us from the bad things that happen.

    1. He’s just like Ben Kenobi protecting you from the truth that he tried to kill your father.

      1. Enjoy this, you will…


    2. Or more like, the awareness of the bad things he does.

    3. But that’s not really lying

      Yes. Cause he used the word “terror” in a sentance the next day.

      1. What’s amazing is that Obama himself probably thinks what he said about the video for a month after wasn’t really lying. I would be dollars to donuts he still thinks he handled the whole mess to perfection.

  16. So, are there articles meta post truth?

    1. Have you noticed how the word ‘meta’ has been used to replace surveys (not saying you’re doing it here, just a convenient reminder of what’s on my mind)? Back in my student days when we did a study of studies we called them surveys, not meta-studies. Like ‘identity theft’, that’s just fraud, people! No new laws needed.

  17. I’m going crazy soon. The FB crowd is out on a tear about voting for the Messiah. I mentioned that, if people were so inclined, they might consider voting 3rd party especially if their state was not in play. I got angry screeds about how critical it was to “add to the mandate”.

    I am worried the alcohol won’t be enough tonight.

    I am bereft of hope. Crying for help.

    1. Mandate for what? A bad economy? A useless foreign policy? The War on Drugs? USA PATRIOT? Out-of-control spending? More stimuli? Continuing attacks on civil liberties? More government bureaucracy? Increasing interventions in what’s left of the free market? More taxation? Socialized medicine? High unemployment? What?

      1. Mandate for free birth control. DUUUUUUH!

      2. That would be the mandate for Bush’s fourth term.
        Oh, apologies. That gives cover to the previous moron who set up the house of cards, privatizing profits and socializing losses.
        But then again, Bubba was simply continuing the corporate crony trend that’s been going on for a century.
        He was no worse than the predecessors.
        No better either.

    2. ‘Add to the mandate’? Mencken’s laughter can be heard from the grave. They really do want it good and hard.

      1. Actually that almost gave me a stroke. Do they really think they’re going to have a mandate?

        1. i swear to God. They actually are saying how critical it is to get the margin of victory up in order to convince the republicans to “stop their culture of obstructionism”.

          Sorry, gotta go vomit some more. brb.

          1. Holy crap, they are past terminal, and being past terminal but still moving makes a person a — I’ll be in the bunker.

        2. No, nicole, a “man date”. With Obama. Why do I always have to mansplain this stuff to you?

          1. I suspect most of these folks would cream their pants for such a man date actually. The “beer summit” was like the fucking Oslo accords.

            1. So their friend compasses aim for Obama instead of Jesus? Watch the last scene with butter’s and his dad explaining an erection if you haven’t seen it before. It wont spoil the plot if you do.


      1. Huh, that’s actually pretty damn funny. I guess I’ll come in off the ledge and mix up a martini or six.

        Thanks Tman!

  18. Obama is so perfect and awesome that reality bends to his whim. The only thing stopping it is the Regressive Force exerted by Rethuglicans and moderate Democrats. It’s basic physics people!

    1. Yes, he just “needs more time”

  19. I’ve been a little weirded out lately by hearing so many progressives say that conservatives “don’t live in an objective reality” or “don’t believe in an objective reality.” Pretty sure one of the trolls was saying it yesterday. It’s sort of like the “reality-based community” thing, but actually worse, because it’s progressives who actually don’t believe in objective truth. I mean, not all of them, but that belief is much more typical of them than of conservatives.

    When can we leave bizarro world?!?

    1. On TCM, the marvelous _A Tree Grows in Brooklyn_ is showing. Beats the liars on MSNBC and Fox.

    2. The “reality-based community” nonsense is one of the most ridiculously un-self-aware memes in U.S. history. The left simply doesn’t care about reality, even when it slaps them in the face.

    3. Conservatives are idiots that believe in Creationism and the Apocalypse other ridiculous non-truths.

      1. But they believe in an objective reality. Not “that truth is fine for you, but I have my own truth.”

        1. What objective reality?

          The Bible? The Koran?

          The very definition of Conservatism is atavistic – it is rooted in myth and the past.

          Ayn Rand hated conservatives.

          Tell me one thing conservatives believe that us skeptics have wrong.

      2. They also believe the debt is a problem. I know which of the three is most relevant to this election.

        1. Dick Cheney said deficits don’t matter. Obama said he would halve the deficit.

          WTF is wrong with you?

          1. Cheney was wrong. Obama’s a liar whose dick hasn’t left your lips in four years.

      3. But they proved that AUSTERITY HAS FAILED!!!(before it started)

        Also, everyone who disagrees with that statement is just brainwashed by their fact-challenged right-wing media! (goes back to reading The Nation and listening to NPR)

        My favorite classic progressive example of how truly unaware they are their own self-invented bullshit ‘reality’ was when Sullum here busted Lewis Lapham for writing his critique of GOP speeches at the 2004 convention… the week before they actually happened. (whoops! editor unconcerned with publication dates… it SAYS september on the cover!!)

        We libertarians must be lapdogs to the religious-right and the corporatist conspiracy to have had the mendacity of popping that particular reality-bubble

      4. Here’s the case study in progressive-liberal ‘absolutism’ in regards to ‘truth’


        “All these issues are much more complicated than ‘right’ and ‘wrong’…”

        Apparently even Rape has an important *contextual* aspect.

        The best part is the giggling condescension where she repeatedly states that the person asking the questions is too stupid to understand contexuality and the the necessity of accepting multiplicities of reality in modern discourse… or something like that.

        I’ve had people who barely graduated Podunk Community College lecture me on ‘the applicability of Deconstructionism to the modern political discourse and the necessity to accept multiple realities in order to expand the depth of potential meanings…’ etc.

        And I (dont say this, but usually think it) am like, “Christ, I read all that shit too in college… and unfortunately for him, understood it all. Poor bastard.”

    4. I hate liberals but I understand most of them because I use to be one. I have no misconceptions about why they act the way they do, and I certainly don’t believe they are not living in an “objective reality”, they just see things differently than I do.

      Same with conservatives. I disagree with some of their points and agree with others but I don’t think they are somehow neglecting objective truth.

      There is nothing worse than someone who wants to argue the person and not the point.

      1. But many progressives are too far down the road of moral relativism to say they really believe in an “objective reality.” I mean, try talking to them about religion or something. Your god is true for you, my spirituality is true for me, man. All emotion, no logic. It’s not about right or wrong, but objective vs. subjective realities.

        1. Well, there are liberals and then there are brain dead idiots who one could say at one point may have been classified as liberal. And I could say the same about conservatives.

          The problem is that the extreme elements of the fringe of the parties tend to define what most people think of them.

          For instance not every liberal is as dumb as Tony or Shreek but that’s the only kind that shows up here. I’m not prepared to assume all liberals are that stupid, so I consider them outliers, not accurate representations.

        2. I’d say religion is the very essence of subjective reality, since there is absolutely no way to prove anything one way or the other.

    5. nicole, you need to understand that one of the foundational psychological features of TEAM BLUE types is projection. Everything they do, they inevitably accuse the other TEAM of. This is because they think they are the good guys, so when they do shitty things, this bothers them. Their solution is to accuse, and believe, that the other side does it, and does it worse. Since the other guys are worse, this absolves them of guilt and means they’re still the good guys.

      This is fundamental to their personalities.

      1. It’s true. I almost got political on Twitter today claiming that Moby-Dick was a “red” (as in “red state”) book because it was too individualistic to be blue, and someone told me that in the US at least, individualism is neither red nor blue. I guess in the sense that most people of both parties are totalitarian fuckwads that is the case, but it seriously destroys me that Ds think they have any shred of individualism left.

        People used to say something like…hands off my body? government hands off my body? my body my rights? I don’t know, it was something like that…something crazy…I haven’t heard it in a while.

        1. When you throw away your individuality and integrity for absolute partisanship, you have to throw away all that old shit. And that’s what they’ve done.

          The TEAMs are all about self-worth now. People gain their self worth from the TEAM, and therefore nothing comes before that. Nothing.

          1. Brilliant parallel..
            The state apparatus, the bureaucracy, which exists long after tonight’s celebrity party heavyweights have died, has one objective — eternal life.
            And you identify the ironic similarity. The Teams’ objective is self-sustenance, propagation into perpetuity independent of person, of candidate.
            They Teams’ missions are the same as the bureaucracy itself.

            1. Forgive typos which occur too often with my clumsy and hurried fingers on the iPad.

            2. It’s TEAM BORG all the way down.

    6. “don’t believe in an objective reality.”

      At one time it was the left who spent a lot of time talking about how truth is subjective and all perspectives are valid from within a certain context.

      Apparently they stopped thinking that once they were finished revising history the way they liked it.

      Now, it’s an “objective fact” that the US overthrew Salvadore Allende. In 10-20 years I fully expect it to be an “objective fact” that the CIA killed Kennedy.

      1. I guess it just happened to work out that all perspectives that are valid from within the right TEAM contexts are true.

      2. Apparently they stopped thinking that once they were finished revising history the way they liked it.

        It was never about the truth but controlling the prevailing narrative.

        1. I thought that deserved a bold quote as it was put so well instead of a mere quote.

      3. “Now, it’s an “objective fact” that the US overthrew Salvadore Allende.”

        Hmm, well the US didn’t, but Kissinger & elements in the CIA certainly egged on the folks that did.

  20. The short version is that all of the writers above are on the side of righteousness and Mitt Romney is the servant of Satan.

    Heard it 10,000 times before, what’s one more?

  21. Fascinating stuff, I guess. Great post.

    So is this what serious political journalism looks like, post
    “view from nowhere”? One *would* hope that there
    would be more effort to include more fact , and give us
    more of a “somewhere”. Needs more fixodent for a better bite. Same goes for the #presspushback thing — needs more honesty and integrity (whatever those are). Let’s go team. LOL.

  22. …they have told a larger story about policy that’s true.

    Satan: Oh I just LOVE the small lies in service of a greater truth!

  23. Why did he name his column after a fruit? Oh, I get it, he means a PLUMB line!

  24. Lies vary in how serious they are.

    George Orwell expressed a fear in the book 1984 that leaders would gain so much influence they could: “announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.” Previously he wrote: “This prospect frightens me much more than bombs”.

    We seem to have reached that point. Obama claimed at the Democratic National Convention on Sept. 6th, 2012: “I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt”.

    Yet the White House site contains his 2013 budget proposal with a table showing his planned national debt at the end of each year through 2022. It adds at least $900 billion to the debt every year, $9.6 trillion over a decade.

    If a CEO lied about his company’s finances to get people to buy stock, the public would cry “fraud! send him to jail!”. Should we trust someone to run our government that we wouldn’t trust to run a company? This isn’t a one time gaffe, he has repeated it from the State of the Union in January, through dozens of speeches into October and a campaign commercial.

    People failed to point out his own site contradicts him, there is no need to trust a partisan source. He’ll keep lying if people don’t spread the word since he gets away with it. See this short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zJbYNDRn_Y or http://www.PoliticsDebunked.com for more including links.

    1. “Do we live in a post-truth era?” is the title of a fabulous article by Ronald Bailey published at Reason a year or so ago, early 2013.

      My mother used to say that actions speak louder than words. Obama has amply answered that question in the affirmative.

      The question now becomes: What will your response be to the lies Obama, his administration and other politicians regularly give us? It seems that the saying – Know the Truth and the Truth will Set you Free – has become even more appropriate than ever – see http://www.LifeStrategies.net/truth

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.