Archive for March 10th, 2012
If you tell a lie in a warm, polished baritone voice, it’s still a lie. Some recent examples to add to The Mitt’s Pinochio Problem.
The Mitt told us on March 4:
This is a president who has failed … to communicate that military options are on the table and in fact in our hand. And that it’s unacceptable to America for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
In fact, President Obama said on March 2, and not for the first time, either:
In the conversations I’ve had over the course of three years, and over the course of the last three months and three weeks, what I’ve emphasized is that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States, and that when I say we’re not taking any option off the table, we mean it … I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.
The Mitt simply lied on March 4. If you consider he made those statements in the context of an existing, ongoing crisis, interfering with the U.S. position in that crisis, the lie is doubly appalling.
You think Iran is an isolated incident. How about health care?
The Mitt wrote an opinion piece for U.S.A. Today back on July 30, 2009, supporting a federal individual mandate for health insurance. And yet candidate Mitt has consistently defended his Massachusetts health care reform effort on Tenth Amendment grounds, insisting that it was merely “a state solution to a state problem.”
The trouble with the president’s plan, Romney has argued, is not that its policy particulars — the individual mandate to buy health insurance, the coverage subsidies, the Medicaid expansion — were based on the Massachusetts plan, but rather that it “was a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation.”
If there was any doubt that The Mitt is lying like a rug about this earlier positions, consider Jonathan Gruber. He has the distinction of being one of the architects of both the Massachusetts plan and the federal plan. He says Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.
The problem is there is no way to say that. Because they’re the same f*****g bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.
In The Mitt we have a candidate who will look the voter in the eye, and then lie through his teeth. About domestic issues. About foreign issues. Apparently, about anything that will serve his overweening goal of getting himself elected President. It’s not what WC is looking for in a President.
The only question for WC is why the infamously liberal mainstream media haven’t called The Mitt out on this already.