they will vote for anyone that is a Republican and not Obama.

Ultimately, as the GOP establishment has gotten more out in the open with its lies and extreme behavior and policy positions, their fan base (yes, "fans," as opposed to discerning citizens) has simultaneously gotten less bothered by stuff like that (only as long as such behavior is committed by a Republican, of course).

This result is part and parcel of the entire system marketing politics to the consumers voters as just a Big Game.

=========================

It's pretty hard to top Bush's and Cheney's WMD lie or all of the lies around the outing of a non-official cover CIA agent. Before that they fabricated a whole phony school of economic thought and called it "supply-side economics." Seems to me they got more out in the open with their lies and extreme behavior a long time ago. It's what they are.

...who can sign his name to the bills they put in front of him ("they" meaning the Koch Bros, Grover Norquist, & KKKarl Rove friends via the Congress they bought).

Heck they'd vote for a monkey if they could, as long as the thing could sign its name. They've said before that all they want is essentially a robosigner.

So yea, the lies (and gross incompetence) don't matter to them. They just want a robot.

And the pundits would compare it with abortion. If they haven't already. They will always support the GOP. And will refuse to report anything done good by Democrats. They will fire anyone who stands up to the GOP period.

Most of these pundits got their jobs running the circus for Ken Starr's Chamber that cost the taxpayers $80M to discredit all progressive initiatives by Democrats. They are untrustworthy, no matter what tidbits they toss our way to keep us watching.

It's hard to imagine how Romney could top that

See, e.g., The Enduring Lies of Ronald Reagan
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3242/

Mitt Romney is a classic example of a manchild; a boy who never grew up. Never once in his life has he had to take the consequences for his own actions.

Very recently, I think. As I recall, things didn't turn out so well.

==================

Probably because any of the major media outlets that engage in fact-checking are not part of the regular viewing/listening habits of the majority of Romneybots.

==========================

[IMG][/IMG]

Gross!

That's a great one!

It would be stronger if it listed say, five or six lies, instead of just going on and on with empty accusations.

This

"Back in the old days (that is, pre-2008) it would have been considered unimaginable that a politician would lie as brazenly as Romney does – for fear of embarrassment or greater scrutiny"

seems like a lie itself.

It is pretty obviously untrue. Bush Jr. was a very brazen liar and about the only one in the M$M who held him accountable was Krugman.

You do make a good point about Bush*. Then again Bush* was quite honest about many things that I did not like at all. I knew well before he was sworn in that we would be at war in the middle east in less than a year.

wrong to single out Romney

"First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work""

That is a lie that has been told by the entire Republican Party. Just while watching the evening news from 5:00 to 6:30 I probably see four ads a day bashing Senator McCaskill for voting for "Obama's failed stimulus bill". Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove's super pac) is responsible for most of those attacks.

Which probably also explains why the M$M does not debunk that lie - because they get millions of dollars in ad revenue to promote it. They'd be attacking their own meal ticket if they went after it.

"Romney also likes to argue that the stimulus didn't help private-sector job growth, but rather helped preserve government jobs"

In some ways that is true though - the part about preserving government jobs. It did that at first, and that's a good thing. It should have done more of it. The article links to Krugman (hmm, almost the only person who debunked Bush before 2001) who writes "If public employment had grown the way it did under Bush, we’d have 1.3 million more government workers, and probably an unemployment rate of 7 percent or less ." (emphasis mine)

"And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes ..."

Well there are some tax increases included in the ACA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Summary_of_funding

Rather than call Romney a liar on that, which seems to be at least partly true, I would rather see our side argue FOR the need to raise taxes, especially on higher incomes.

"He's accused the president of doubling the deficit"

Here the article includes a link to a rebuttal where the link does not work. Here's what I get from the Obama administration ( http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_chart.html )

deficit 2008 - $469
2009 - $1,413
2010 - $1,293
2011 - $1,300

Well that is going to confuse people. It will be hard for them to understand that fiscal year 2009 which runs from October 2008 until September 2009 is NOT part of Obama's deficit because Obama did not take office until almost February 2009. With trillion dollar deficits in his term, it is kinda hard to argue that the deficit did not increase under Obama.

Okay, now I have lost my link to the article because I went to a huffpo link which disabled the back button.

Again though, many of those lies are coming from the whole Republican Party, not just Romney. The media is unlikely to spend much time debunking them, because they are getting paid very well to spread them.

'Facts are stupid things'. -Ronald Reagan

He has his own category of depravity and mendacity.

Romney is a wannabe.

Mittens knows that the short attention span of the corporate media means you can lie without inpunity because by the time anyone bothers to call you on it (if they even do) the 24/7 news cycle has moved onto the "next big thing".

Rmoney's game is simple...say a lie often enough and loud enough people will believe it. This is a game where first impressions count and these lies are an attempt to manufacture a "reality" that doesn't exist...except in the conspiracy laden corrupt brainstems of the rushpublican party.

Shame on the corporate media for always going with the latest lie without fact checking first...to allow these lies to go out unquestioned. Willard's mendacity is deliberate and my hope is despite the corporate media's attempts to create a "horserace", voters have and do see through these lies. Many rushpublican did and are now in denail...no surprise there. But so is the corporate media...and that should be roundly condemned.

Time and time again. If this was any Dem, this would never happen. Any Dem would be called on every other word out of his/her mouth, with or without reason. But Rmoney lies constantly and incessantly and no media ever questions it or calls him on any of it.

Fascinating. Sickening.

We don't live in a sane world.

Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.
– attributed to Marshall McLuhan

I am constantly haunted by a quote from Harry Overstreet, who wrote the following in his 1925 groundbreaking study, Influencing Human Behavior: "Giving people the facts as a strategy of influence" has been a failure, "an enterprise fraught with a surprising amount of disappointment."
– David DeGraw, "Wall Street's Pentagon Papers," Global Research

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.". . . "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

The source of the term ["reality-based community"] is [the foregoing] quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove) . . . .
– Wikipedia

That apparently fires up the left.