H
Harry Hope
Guest
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/20...s-cover-mitt-romenys-lie-like-hes-a-democrat/
Dec 21st 2007
Will the Press Cover Mitt Romney's Lie Like He's a Democrat?
Cenk-Uygur
If a Democrat ever lies (most of the time it doesn't even have to be a
lie, as long as the press claims it's a lie), the media goes
ballistic.
They never, ever let it go.
The most obvious example is Clinton saying he did not have sexual
relations with Monica Lewinsky.
They built such a firestorm over that lie about his personal life that
the man was impeached.
But at least that actually was a lie.
The press grilled Al Gore for saying he invented the internet and
personally discovered the Love Canal and that Love Story was based on
his marriage.
Here's the problem -- Al Gore never said any of those things.
You should read this great Vanity Fair article about how the media
concocted these fabrications and hammered Gore's reputation with them
in 2000.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710
The writer meticulously researches exactly what Gore said and exactly
which members of the press misquoted him and exaggerated his claims.
And how the press mercilessly piled on, when ironically they were the
ones misleading the public.
Now, the question is:
Will Mitt Romney get anywhere near that level of scrutiny for his
blatant lie?
Romney has flip-flopped and weaseled on countless issues (my favorite
is that he had been for gun rights all along because he used to be a
hunter himself -- he claimed he hunted rodents and other "small
varmints;" God, that's embarrassing).
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/07/romney_defends_lack_of_hunting_license/
But his lie about seeing his father march with Martin Luther King,
Jr., has been proven to be an absolute fabrication.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march/?page=1
His father never marched with Martin Luther King and Mitt Romney
certainly never "saw" that happen.
Now Romney claims he meant it figuratively.
How do you see something figuratively?
Was it a mirage?
Was it in a dream?
Even more importantly, how many other things has Romney meant
figuratively?
Should we not take anything he says literally?
This is a great little scam for any lie you get caught in.
"Honey, did I say I didn't cheat on you? I meant that figuratively.
Literally speaking, yes, I slept with your sister."
Ladies, are you buying it?
Since that was so lame, Romney then argued that it depends on your
definition of "saw."
Remind you of anything?
It might also depend on the definition of "lie."
Well, how is this for a lie:
In 1978 Romney claimed, "My father and I marched with Martin Luther
King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
Does that depend on the definition of "marched"?
How about the definition of "Martin Luther King"?
Maybe he and his dad walked by a picture of King and thought, "Good
enough."
So, will the press treat Romney like he's a Democrat and rip him to
shreds?
Will they keep repeating the fact that Romney clearly lied about this?
Or will he get a free ride like most Republicans because the press is
deathly afraid of being called liberal if they point out the obvious
lies and hypocrisies of the right?
The number of lies Bush has gotten away with is innumerable.
Just a couple of weeks ago, he claimed he didn't see the NIE on Iran's
weapons program in August
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/05/yet-another-outrageous-bush-lie/14
and then had to backtrack
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/05/bush.iran/index.html and send
his spokesperson out to say he had seen it (maybe this too depends on
the definition of "saw").
Anyone still talking about that obvious lie?
No, of course not.
He's a Republican.
It would be biased to point out how often he lies.
Karl Rove avoided prosecution in the Valerie Plame case by admitting
that he had lied about not being involved.
He eventually told the grand jury that he had in fact leaked her name
to several reporters and misled Scott McClellan and the whole country
about it earlier.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/11/21/mcclellan/
Yet, people still take him seriously and he just got a column in
Newsweek to print more of his fabrications.
By the way, Bush and Rove's lies were not about their personal lives
(they had those, too, like Bush covering up his drunk driving record,
but I give him a pass on that because that isn't a matter of national
interest).
The Bush administration lies got people killed.
Yet they have never been held to account anywhere near what Clinton
and Gore went through.
Will this double standard ever end?
Maybe this lie by Romney is so obvious that it'll be the beginning of
the end.
I'm so naive that I'm still hopeful about that.
So far, the press coverage on it has been significant, so we can't
complain.
Let's see if they hammer him on it all campaign long as you know they
would do to a Democrat.
Or if they just let it go after a couple of days, as they did with his
ridiculous assertions about being a lifelong hunter.
One final small note, while Romney was explaining his lie he used the
example of seeing the Patriots win the World Series.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528873.aspx
Come on man, that's your home team.
You were governor of Massachusetts.
You have to know the Patriots play football and not baseball.
This is incredibly minor, but so was when John Kerry called Lambeau
Field, Lambert Filed.
And the press would not stop talking about that for months.
Will they hold Romney to the same standard on the Patriots?
You know and I know that they won't.
They'll never mention it again.
Well, at least we'll do our part.
Here's us making fun of Romney and his ridiculous lie on our show this
morning:
http://www.theyoungturks.com/
_________________________________________________
Harry
Dec 21st 2007
Will the Press Cover Mitt Romney's Lie Like He's a Democrat?
Cenk-Uygur
If a Democrat ever lies (most of the time it doesn't even have to be a
lie, as long as the press claims it's a lie), the media goes
ballistic.
They never, ever let it go.
The most obvious example is Clinton saying he did not have sexual
relations with Monica Lewinsky.
They built such a firestorm over that lie about his personal life that
the man was impeached.
But at least that actually was a lie.
The press grilled Al Gore for saying he invented the internet and
personally discovered the Love Canal and that Love Story was based on
his marriage.
Here's the problem -- Al Gore never said any of those things.
You should read this great Vanity Fair article about how the media
concocted these fabrications and hammered Gore's reputation with them
in 2000.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710
The writer meticulously researches exactly what Gore said and exactly
which members of the press misquoted him and exaggerated his claims.
And how the press mercilessly piled on, when ironically they were the
ones misleading the public.
Now, the question is:
Will Mitt Romney get anywhere near that level of scrutiny for his
blatant lie?
Romney has flip-flopped and weaseled on countless issues (my favorite
is that he had been for gun rights all along because he used to be a
hunter himself -- he claimed he hunted rodents and other "small
varmints;" God, that's embarrassing).
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/07/romney_defends_lack_of_hunting_license/
But his lie about seeing his father march with Martin Luther King,
Jr., has been proven to be an absolute fabrication.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march/?page=1
His father never marched with Martin Luther King and Mitt Romney
certainly never "saw" that happen.
Now Romney claims he meant it figuratively.
How do you see something figuratively?
Was it a mirage?
Was it in a dream?
Even more importantly, how many other things has Romney meant
figuratively?
Should we not take anything he says literally?
This is a great little scam for any lie you get caught in.
"Honey, did I say I didn't cheat on you? I meant that figuratively.
Literally speaking, yes, I slept with your sister."
Ladies, are you buying it?
Since that was so lame, Romney then argued that it depends on your
definition of "saw."
Remind you of anything?
It might also depend on the definition of "lie."
Well, how is this for a lie:
In 1978 Romney claimed, "My father and I marched with Martin Luther
King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
Does that depend on the definition of "marched"?
How about the definition of "Martin Luther King"?
Maybe he and his dad walked by a picture of King and thought, "Good
enough."
So, will the press treat Romney like he's a Democrat and rip him to
shreds?
Will they keep repeating the fact that Romney clearly lied about this?
Or will he get a free ride like most Republicans because the press is
deathly afraid of being called liberal if they point out the obvious
lies and hypocrisies of the right?
The number of lies Bush has gotten away with is innumerable.
Just a couple of weeks ago, he claimed he didn't see the NIE on Iran's
weapons program in August
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/05/yet-another-outrageous-bush-lie/14
and then had to backtrack
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/05/bush.iran/index.html and send
his spokesperson out to say he had seen it (maybe this too depends on
the definition of "saw").
Anyone still talking about that obvious lie?
No, of course not.
He's a Republican.
It would be biased to point out how often he lies.
Karl Rove avoided prosecution in the Valerie Plame case by admitting
that he had lied about not being involved.
He eventually told the grand jury that he had in fact leaked her name
to several reporters and misled Scott McClellan and the whole country
about it earlier.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/11/21/mcclellan/
Yet, people still take him seriously and he just got a column in
Newsweek to print more of his fabrications.
By the way, Bush and Rove's lies were not about their personal lives
(they had those, too, like Bush covering up his drunk driving record,
but I give him a pass on that because that isn't a matter of national
interest).
The Bush administration lies got people killed.
Yet they have never been held to account anywhere near what Clinton
and Gore went through.
Will this double standard ever end?
Maybe this lie by Romney is so obvious that it'll be the beginning of
the end.
I'm so naive that I'm still hopeful about that.
So far, the press coverage on it has been significant, so we can't
complain.
Let's see if they hammer him on it all campaign long as you know they
would do to a Democrat.
Or if they just let it go after a couple of days, as they did with his
ridiculous assertions about being a lifelong hunter.
One final small note, while Romney was explaining his lie he used the
example of seeing the Patriots win the World Series.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528873.aspx
Come on man, that's your home team.
You were governor of Massachusetts.
You have to know the Patriots play football and not baseball.
This is incredibly minor, but so was when John Kerry called Lambeau
Field, Lambert Filed.
And the press would not stop talking about that for months.
Will they hold Romney to the same standard on the Patriots?
You know and I know that they won't.
They'll never mention it again.
Well, at least we'll do our part.
Here's us making fun of Romney and his ridiculous lie on our show this
morning:
http://www.theyoungturks.com/
_________________________________________________
Harry
