Now That’s a Screed: Michael Cohen on Mendacious Mitt
The Mitt’s congenital, pathological lying has attracted notice on the other side of the Pond. Michael Cohen, with the London Guardian, calls it out in detail. A sample:
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it “would slow down the economic recovery in this country” and that the White House “knew that before they passed it”. It’s an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is “Just Making Stuff Up Now”.
Cohen even points out The Mitt lies about lying:
What is the proper response when, even after it’s pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It’s a lie on top of a lie.
We are in danger of electing a Liar-in-Chief, who cannot recognize or does not care about the truth. If that doesn’t frighten you, it should.
WC wants to raise one other issue. The Mitt has $100 million in his IRA. An IRA – an Individual Retirement Account – is restricted by law to maximum contributions of $2,000 per year. A traditional IRA allows you to defer – avoid – taxes on contributions and on income generated by the IRA. At least until you spend the money. It’s a modest tax shelter for Regular Folks who can afford to set aside that $2,000 each year. Perhaps The Mitt can explain how, contributing just $2,000 per year, he managed to grow his IRA to $100 million? Other than making contributions for about 50,000 years? Really, really good tax planners? A roll-over from some other tax exempt plan (which raises the same questions all over again)? Or did he cheat?
If WC finds out, he’ll pass the investment secrets along to his readers.
I read a post on the internet yesterday (wish I could recall the web site) in which a psychiatrist stated that Romney is not lying. He says it’s Mormonism which allows Romney to lie without conscience and to deny reality because when Romney says something, it’s his version of reality. I don’t buy this psychiatrist’s explanation of why Romney lies. Romney has been described as a technocrat and heavily into data mining. This description of him says to me that Romney’s had many opportunities to examine accurate data on the president’s record on the economy and on immigration, and he’s had time to review the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling on AZ SB1070. If Romney is limiting himself to information produced by RW “think tanks” like the Cato Institute, it might explain his lying to some extent, but I don’t think this would be the case where Romney is concerned since he’s a technocrat. I think he’s lying because he knows a hefty percentage of American voters are not well-informed on any issue. Romney is very dangerous, and his constant lying disturbs me. If he’s lying and secretive now, I can imagine how he’d be as POTUS–a disaster.
majiir
July 7, 2012 at 7:35 am
There is a Mormon Doctrine that Romney is “religiously” following called “Lying for the Lord” and is indeed not only blessed, but encouraged. Their missionaries employ it at all times when they get asked questions about the Church operations. Gotta protect the Mormon secrets from the Gentiles (non-Mormons) and even their own members. Jon Huntsman, Romney’s cousin is also using it to seem as if he wants to leave the GOP as a political ploy to position himself for the next election – either in 2016 or 2020, depending on how Romney does now.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord
katzkids
July 8, 2012 at 4:36 am
Having worked with many Mormons I would agree there is a distinct behavior that is employed to be in the workplace with non-Mormons. They avoid being honest when confronted with some issues. Not lying, but deflective in a confusing way to people not aware of the conflict. I worry Mitt Romney has come to believe this behavior allows him a free pass when confronting issues outside the Mormon world. He would be a very ineffective and dishonest president.
aklucia
July 7, 2012 at 5:59 pm
I think the Mormonism business is just too easy as an explanation. It doesn’t explain anything, in my opinion. It’s Mitt the person, whether he’s buddhist, catholic, mormon or whatever. For instance, I regard Mitt as dramatically different from his dad, George. Despite Gov. George’s gaffe about brainwashing in Viet Nam by the generals, for his time and for his context, he was rather stand-up when it came to civil rights for blacks,as one major example. There was a whole host of governors and other public officials of his time who would not and did not do what George did, and that was to get out front and be vocal about civil rights, including marching in civil rights demonstrations. Mind you, this was before the late-70s “reverse revelation” when the Mormon leadership supposedly got the amended revelation from on high that said black folks were OK after all. Gov. George was out there, and he was appreciated for it. He was distinctive in a way that Mitt is not, and probably never will be. Was he less Mormon than Mitt? It’s Mitt. It’s not Mormonism.
Paul Eaglin
Fairbanks
paul2eaglin
July 7, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Was Kennedy any less Catholic? And should this matter? Mitt’s father did hold office when there were more people convinced the separation of church and state to be a given in governance.
aklucia
July 7, 2012 at 7:54 pm
George had a heart – Willard does not. He also ran in the days when they still believed in a level of integrity. It’s both Romney & Mormonism. The Mormons believe in lying & using any tactic which will bring them the Presidency for a Zion Theocracy, prophesied by Joseph Smith, founder who was running for President when he was killed.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_and_the_white_horse_prophecy/
katzkids
July 8, 2012 at 4:41 am
That he lies is fact. Whether it’s Mitt or Mormonism, let both sides be heard. Perhaps there is a Mormon excuse for disingenuousness that George Romney was above employing, or perhaps their is no such thing. I don’t know, and most Americans don’t know either. I don’t think that the tenets of the religion a candidate professes should be off-limits, and if one or more tenets appear to conflict with the obligations of a candidate or holder of public office, he or she should be required to respond — as we all know JFK did.
freshwatersnark
July 7, 2012 at 10:14 pm