One of the more disquieting characteristics of this 2012 political campaign are the lies candidates tell the public about an opponent. In addition to lies of fact, they paint the opposition policies as bad policy. In this piece I'll focus on the lies told about what an opponent said or did or did not do.
When a candidate tells a known lie, he is trying to discredit the opposition by insulting his audience. The true mission of a political lie is to confuse, scare, and mislead the voter into believing something bad will happen if his opponent is elected. A lie repeated will soon be accepted as truth.
Listen to a Rush Limbaugh radio program to confirm how lies get propagated. Limbaugh makes it easy for intellectually lazy people to hold opinions without thinking. He counts on that in his audience. A politician that lies is likewise trying to distort the opposition's position on one or more important issue (s) without the voter's critical thinking.
Thinker's question, never accept unsubstantiated opinions, and weigh claims against known truth.
To be fair, both presidential candidates are guilty of falsehoods or, at the very least, stretching the truth beyond the borders of reasonableness. However, it is my opinion that the GOP — in cahoots with their super pack bullies — lie and distort the most in this election.
A super pack is a secret group of people who can spend unlimited funds and spread unaccountable lies on behalf of their candidate, specifically to defame an opposition candidate. These super packs are the modern day hired guns. They have deep pockets and can lie without repercussions.
The Libya slayings of four Americans at the US Embassy is a prime example of unabashed lying by a politician and his hired gun super pack.
Before the smoke cleared at the Embassy, the Romney-Ryan duo, et al, tried selling the American voter that it was Obama's fault for the scant Embassy protection and they (the administration) should have known what actually happened immediately after the attack.
Never mind that the GOP-controlled congress passed legislation that cut funding for embassy protection by hundreds of million dollars. Further, the GOP attack dogs (Romney and super pack) claimed Obama's announcement that the attack was driven by the terrible, amateurish film made in the U.S.A. attacking Muslims, was bogus. What Obama did say was it was a terror attack. That was brought out in the second debate. It gets worse.
After the embassy attack, Romney claimed that Obama was "apologizing" to the killers of embassy personnel on behalf of Americans. An independent news source determined the truth. That lie was apparently based on a message released by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo before the attack, which was designed to reduce tensions inflamed by the hate-speech of Terry Jones and his Muslim-hating supporters, who are promoting a despicably anti-Islam film via YouTube.
The announcement didn't come from either President Obama or the State Department, and it was issued before, not after, the killings in Benghazi by the Embassy in Libya. Truth dies easily, lies too often live on.
At a recent Wednesday morning news conference, Romney failed to correct the record and acknowledge that the Cairo Embassy statement didn't come from President Obama and that it preceded the killings. Instead Romney claimed that the Obama administration's statements were "apologizing" for America.
However, PolitiFact debunked that claim and added: "This is a theme for Romney. He has long accused Obama of apologizing for America, starting in 2010, when Romney published "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness." Since then, he has repeatedly criticized what he has called an "apology tour" by Obama. PolitiFact has examined those speeches, consulted experts on speechmaking and apologies, and rated Romney's claim "Pants on Fire."
FactCheck.org stated: "A few weeks ago, a Romney advisor said the campaign won't be 'dictated by fact-checkers,' which may be the most truthful statement the Romney campaign has made."
What's the big deal, you might ask. It's this: If people lie to get elected — not just stretch the truth — and a voter casts his vote for such a person, why should that voter be surprised when the office holder continues to lie in office? To elect a liar — not just someone who stretches the truth, but a person who out right lies, distorts evidence, engages in falsehood to hide truth from the people — is to bring into office another Richard Nixon, or worse. The Romney advisor who said the Romney campaign will not be run by fact checkers is putting every voter on notice — We won't go with the truth if it doesn't serve our needs.
Good luck in November.
