There IS a way to derail the Romney lie machine

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:24 PM - Edit history (17)

There is a way to counter the Romney lie machine, but it is not calling him a liar.

Rather than complaining about lies defensively (which is a losing proposition) the lies need to be examined as mere pieces of evidence, relatively unimportant in and of themselves, that support the active case that Mitt Romney lacks the integrity to be President.

Not whining about lies. Not defending Obama against lies. The substance of the many charges against Obama is almost incidental. See, it doesn't really matter when some plant closed or what funds were shifted where and why. People's eye glaze over. It's heard as a "he said, he said."

The lies only matter as an indicator of Romney's fitness for office.

The argument is this:

[font color=green][font size=3]Resolved: IF Mitt Romney and his campaign are lying continually THEN Mitt Romney lacks the integrity to be President.[/font color][/font]

The only counter to that resolution is, "Mitt Romney can lie continually and still have the integrity to be President." Nobody wants to make that argument. Few voters would like to think of themselves as accepting that proposition. (Though millions do, of course.) So the resolution must be adopted provisionally.

Then the question becomes simple and narrow. Is Mitt, in fact, lying? If so, it has already been established that he lacks the integrity to be President.

(By the way, this would not work against an incumbent. But Mitt is the relatively unknown challenger, so this would work because it is ultimately about vetting him for office.)

People assume that all politicians are liars. "Both sides do it." So the charge must not be lying, but rather unfitness to hold the public trust, as indicated by the chronic lying.

Now, perhaps it could be argued that after tallying up his hundreds of lies there are not quite enough lies to disqualify Mitt for high office. Perhaps Mitt could try to argue that some good presidents have lied almost as much as he does. Good luck with that.

Would the public object to ads stating that Mitt Romney lacks the integrity to be President? Yes, they would. It would be a real turn-off if done in that sleazy, insinuating way of negative ads.

Unless the ads are framed as a simple determination, rather than an accusation. The meat of the argument is putting the first question on the table.

1) Should someone who lies all the time be president?
2) Does Romney lie all the time?

No photo negatives and scary music. No subliminal mind-fuck. A dispassionate question asked more in sadness than in anger.

"Most of us don't think that a man who lies about everything important should be President. So it is a serious charge to say that Mitt Romney lies continually. I wouldn't make it lightly. But we can look at the evidence."

And none of this "fact-checkers say..." That's very 20th century. Nobody trusts "fact checkers" or newspaper editorial boards anymore. Just state the lies, alongside the truth. Tick it off, in businesslike fashion. (In practice, 'presenting the evidence' is merely asserting that the lies are lies. The real examination of the evidence is outside the scope of ads. That is what a national dialog is for. If anyone thinks the evidence offered in a 30 second ad is insufficient then we are happy to back it up. All day long. Everyday. "Can you back up this suggestion that Mitt lies too much to be President?" I'm glad you asked... how long do you have?)

Again, this point is so important... when Mitt lies about Medicare the counter is not that Obama is a defender of medicare. We should not be talking about whether or not Obama eliminated the welfare work requirements. Obama ought not be on the defensive.

See, these lies mean nothing to us for what they say. We are above that. We have nothing to hide and nothing to apologize for.

The lies are important only as evidence of a potentially disqualifying lack of character.

Once the premise that being an habitual liar is disqualifying is put on the table everything clicks into place. The premise is damn hard to challenge. Premise > Evidence > Conclusion.

Should someone who lies all the time be president?

Should someone who lies all the time be president?

Should someone who lies all the time be president?

Shift the question from, "Is Romney a liar?," to, "If Romney is a liar, would that disqualify him?"

THAT is the question we want the media to be forced to take up. The media has largely accepted that Mitt is a chronic liar only because lying is not considered all that important. The lies are established. The trick is to make the lying important.

Whether Mitt is a liar isn't the conclusion, it is merely a question to be examined, a fact to be established, because it answers the larger question of whether he should be President.

[patrice]

1. Read Matt Taibbi's article in the Rolling Stone it's all right there: the LIES about debt & deficits

and how evil it is to depend upon the government and others.

Vampire capitalism isn't the half of it!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829#ixzz250gY8f9b

[Amonester]

14. Shameless KICK.

[woolldog]

2. This is really good stuff cthulu

Send it to the campaign

[cthulu2016]

11. You mean they don't already study every word we write here?

<joke>

[Fumesucker]

3. For that to work the M$M would have to actually use the "L" word..

Something they are remarkably loath to do.

The media is the real reason we have reached this point, both sides do it and we'll have to leave it there.

Now for a word from our sponsors, the big money people who stand to benefit enormously from Mitt's lies.

[cthulu2016]

4. That's the point... they can be forced to

They don't want to ask the question. It is toxic to them.

But if an official premise of the Obama campaign was that Romney lacks the character to be president because he lies constantly then the MSM has no choice but examine that premise.

They can call it anything they want, as long as they are talking about whether somebody who does it (whatever "it" is called) is disqualified for high office.

It's win-win. When they split the difference is Mitt only halfway morally disqualified to be President?

But the MSM will never take up the question on their own. They will note every day, in passing, that nothing Mitt says is true but they will not consider the implications of that unless the Obama campaign makes a claim.

Then that claim of the decisive significance of lying all the time must be examined.

And that's a great discussion to have. Do Romney's lies rise to the level of moral dysfunction, or is he an okay guy who merely happens to never tell the truth about anything?

Win-win.

The MSM has painted themselves into a corner, if we push the issue. They have all said that Romney lies all the time, but think they can get away with playing that off as no big deal. So make it a big deal.

[Fumesucker]

5. The "swing voters" are the ones you have to reach..

And a great many of them think all politicians lie all the time, with some justification I might add.

I know several like that who wouldn't believe anything that came out of any politician's mouth even if said politician were to claim the sky was blue and hens lay eggs.

Was it you who pointed out yesterday that a huge and complete lie is easier for a politician to defend than just a small fib?

The biggest problem is that Romney's lies are comforting ones to a large percentage of the voting public, we are now reaping the rewards of a thirty plus year Republican disinformation campaign that has largely gone unrefuted by the Democrats in the interests of comity and bipartisanship.

[Tennessee Gal]

6. Your proposal is a good one.

You are very adept at explaining it.

So, how would you suggest explaining the specific lies in what Romney has been saying to folks who may bite on the questions you have presented regarding Romney being disqualified for the Presidency?

Once it has been presented to a right winger that Romney is not qualified to be President because he may be lying, you know they will want specifics. And you also know that they will claim that Obama is also a liar.

[cthulu2016]

7. The specifics of the lies themselves are well documented

We have a dynamic where the Romney campaign is based entirely on lies, and all reporters know that. The list is endless.

The question is, why doesn't that matter? Most people, media included, assume all politicians lie all the time anyway so it is no big deal.

But if it is put forward that Mitt's lies rise to the level of some sort of moral dysfunction, to some core personal unreliability, then the 1,000 well documented lies take on a different character. Rather than individual lies about medicare, or whether he ran Bain, or whether he inherited money from his father, or whether Obama cut the welfare work requirement they are all arguments for the larger proposition of moral dysfunction.

Now, I certainly agree with you that Republicans will say Obama also lies. (And they will say that Clinton lied.)

But so what? "Everybody does it" is already the baseline assumption so that doesn't move the needle any. On that case, the usual aggressive claim that Obama lies becomes a defensive claim. Obama's "lies" are suddenly merely elements of Mitt Romney's defense to the charge of being too unreliable and morally bankrupt to be President.

So it's no win for Romney. First, to say "both sides do it" requires admitting that he does it. Second, can any case be made that Obama's "lies" rise to the level of disqualifying moral dysfunction while Mitt's do not?

Obama is likable. Mitt is not. Mitt will lose any argument that requires that people believe that Obama is a bad man.

And Mitt will lose any test of who lies more. He gets away with this because each lie is an isolated whack-a-mole incident.

But the Obama campaign has the power to tie them all together into an over-arching thesis.

And once that happens, every time a lie has to be fact-checked it is an argument for a thesis.

[uponit7771]

8. I say tie the lies to COMPETENCY not integrity cause swing voters think lyin is part of politics...

....already.

[cthulu2016]

10. Yes, they do assume both sides do it. That is a

Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

defense mechanism people use to avoid cognitive dissonance about their own political process.

That unexamined, cynical view is an excuse for not thinking about the implications. The voters and the media would prefer to not think about the implications.

And that is why forcing the dialog is important.

Romney's campaign is based entirely on the assumption that people would prefer to not face those implications. That is what must be attacked. (In chess terms, that is the base of Mitt's pawn chain.)

If people do confront those implications Romney explodes. And I think the Obama campaign can force an examination of those implications.

[uponit7771]

15. ...hmmm, I see...but that takes a blitz, a well organized 2 week long subject change and the DNC

...isn't good at .


Obama has been better but this isn't rocket science...I just don't know why they have done it yet...

[cthulu2016]

20. It may not require a blitz.

If Obama said only once, "There is a point where we have to ask whether a man who lies as recklessly and casually as Governor Romney does is fit to hold this office," then it's on the table for the rest of the campaign.

From there it is just a matter for surrogates, and ads if needed.

Every lie becomes, "Just one more proof that Governor Romney has something fundamentally flawed in his character."

Obama could back-peddle and never repeat the charge explicitly. He would just start describing himself as someone who humbly tries, every day, to show the people that he has the basic integrity to hold the office they have entrusted him with, and everyone would know what that meant.

When asked about it in a debate, he could say, "I am not here to call Governor Romney names. I have a country to run. The decision as to whether Governor Romney, or myself, are honest enough men to hold this office is a decision the people have to make for themselves."

[nc4bo]

9. Going to give you a ton of credit for coming up with a good solution...

I've run into several FB responses where the "all politicians lie" comes up and I (and other liberals) are left to argue over the varying degrees of lying-ness. I feel like it's not enough but not sure what other direction to go in except for the classic response and that's just posting factual evidence against an obvious lie.

Thanks and will do as you suggest. Hopefully the O campaign has already covered it.

[cthulu2016]

12. Thank you,

though I don't think this would help much with our facebook arguments.

Only the campaign has the power to re-frame the question of whether habitual lying is important.

[nc4bo]

13. cthulu2017

It's thick out there. Even though your point is specifically directed at the O campaign, it's something that many Dems deal with everyday (FB just being a huge political sound off/discussion forum if one allows it).

If a politician has been continuously proven to be a pathological liar about every issue than that person shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility of leading this country. Why would you vote for a person proven to be untrustworthy and lacking in integrity? Would he suddenly become trustworthy after he's been sworn in?

I still think this is a good question to ask any one who just tosses all observations and debates into the "they all do it" category. So my thank-you stands

[uponit7771]

16. +1

[uponit7771]

17. How to bumber sticker the response is key also, too much explaining about Medicare for instance

...is derailing this process when it comes to what Obama did

[cthulu2016]

19. Yes. The particular facts do not matter except insofar as

the advance or fail to advance the thesis that Mitt is just too defective to be president.

Don't explain, attack. But "you're a liar" is not a powerful attack in today's world.

Being a liar is such a minor charge these days that Romney is willing to trade off being an obvious liar for having the word "welfare" spoken more often.

I wrote something the other day about why the big lie works, and spent a lot of time thinking about how the big lie can be countered.

The big lie puts the opponent in a perpetually defensive posture on issue after issue. I think the key is to create a framework wherein the race is about who is a liar. Not who lost WWI for Germany, or who cut what out of medicare... who is too morally defective to hold the office.

It is hard to battle issues with a big liar so you must battle the man, and in particular his character.

Everyone already knows Obama can be president because he is. The burden of fitness is on Romney.

But to elevate Mitt's habitual lying to a decisive issue requires raising the stakes on what it means to be an habitual liar... that it is disqualifying. That is a strong statement, outside the usual, "He's a fine man who happens to have some bad ideas."

There is a little risk in putting it on the table because it would give the vapors to the centrist media clucks. But once it is on the table it cannot be reduced to "both sides do it."

Or rather, if it is reduced to that we win.

Romney cannot afford to argue that Obama lies as much as he does. First, he'd lose the argument. Second, even if he battled Obama to a draw on who's a big liar he cannot afford the election to be a referendum on Mitt because he is not a likable man.

[sadbear]

18. Is there enough time to do to him and Lyin' Paul Ryan what republicans did to Al Gore?

I worked beautifully for them in 2000, but I don't remember how much time they had to work with it.

We have to make it so that EVERYTHING either one of those guys says between now and election day is ridiculed as a lie or a stretch or whatever.

[reflection]

21. Good grok.

Excellent method of framing. I think you're onto something here.

[cthulu2016]

27. Glad somebody else still uses "grok"

I like the word... more encompassing than the modern "get" that is an approximation.

(Too bad Heinlein was such a Randian pud.)

[reflection]

30. There are a few people left who use it... yes, Heinlein was a Randian pud indeed

but as I get older, I'm learning to separate the artist from the art.

This allows me to enjoy the product without dealing with the baggage from the producer.

(Which is good, considering last night's gaffe-tastic fiasco with the empty chair. I like Clint Eastwood. )

[cthulu2016]

22. UPDATE—Why this Matters:

The top word to describe this actual pathological liar is now "honest."

This is the battle we want. We have cut away Romney's' business career and his Governorship. All that remains for him is the assumption that a goody two-shoes Mormon must be a straight shooter. As Karl Rove proved several times, candidates are vulnerable where they appear strong. The fact that he actually is an habitual liar makes it that much easier.

[sadbear]

23. Trying to turn his biggest weakness into a strength.

Is that how it's supposed to work?

[cthulu2016]

24. Visa-versa

Unless you mean that Romney has somehow turned his single worst trait into his best. I agree that's a heck of a trick.

[gollygee]

25. I think social media is the way to get this message out

they need to be called out on their lies frequently. I love the #LyinRyan twitter hashtag, and I think #BullshitMitt or #TrickyMitt would be good, too. But I think the thing is to get this in people's heads, that these folks lie and lie and lie. "How can you tell Ryan is lying? His lips are moving"

[avebury]

26. K&R nt

[nc4bo]

28. Kick! nt

[spanone]

29. k&r...