START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,187,915 people care about Politics

Romney’s Three Biggest Lies (of the Week)

  • 3 of 3

“I’ll work to protect the voting rights of our military, not undermine them.”

Mitt’s biggest lie of the past week is a doozy. Romney claimed that Barack Obama was trying to limit the voting rights of members of the military in Ohio, because of a lawsuit filed in the state over Ohio’s decision to eliminate early voting except for members of the military. Was Obama trying to “undermine” the rights of soldiers? In a word, no. Instead, Obama and the Democratic Party sought to give everyone in Ohio the same rights as Ohio wanted to give soldiers — in other words, to give everyone the opportunity to vote early.

Nevertheless, Romney took to Facebook to play more-patriotic-than-thou, lambasting Obama for “claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the stateís early voting period,” something Romney said was an “outrage.” Of course, Obama wants to keep those early voting privileges in place for the military, and extend it for everyone — including veterans. Romney would refuse to give veterans early voting privileges. Who’s undermining voting rights now?

Indeed, Romney’s bald-face lie drew a rejoinder from John Soltz of VoteVets.org, who said, “Obviously with the narrative the Romney campaign is pushing, they probably don’t have a lot of people around them who have actually served.†We also agree, like the president does, that someone who served in World World II in the Battle of the Bulge or someone who lost their legs in Vietnam has just as much of a right to vote as today’s veteran.”

With three whoppers in the last week, it’s tempting to ask why Romney thinks he can lie with impunity, but of course, the answer is simple: the media won’t call him on it. Given over to fake even-handedness, the media is stuck saying things like this:

Republicans say a lawsuit brought by Obama for America in July seeks to eliminate additional time for in-person early voting allotted to service members in the battleground state. Democrats, on the other hand, contend the presumptive GOP nominee is deliberately trying to distort the facts.

Yes, some say the sun is hot, others say it is cold; who can say who’s telling the truth? Well, the media could, but that would require them to care more about the truth than balance. As long as the media keeps playing at “balance,” Romney will keep spitting out a few notable lies every week.

Related Stories

Romney Pushes ‘Shameful’ Military Voting Lie

Romney Attacked Over Advisorís ĎAngo-Saxoní Gaffe

Romney: If Black People Just Want ďFree StuffĒ They Should Vote For Obama

  • 3 of 3

Read more: , , , , ,

Image Credit: Donkey Hotey

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

541 comments

+ add your own
11:18PM PDT on Aug 24, 2012

Thanks

6:22PM PDT on Aug 19, 2012

Thanks

3:23PM PDT on Aug 19, 2012

Thank-you for posting this article.

4:58PM PDT on Aug 18, 2012

Thanks for the article.

5:45PM PDT on Aug 14, 2012

Cutting spending in the midst of a fiancial crisis such as President Obama inherited would have been disasterous and resulted in a full blown depression.

Also Social Security does not "add to the budget deficit," quite the contrary. It pays for itself, has enough money now to pay full benefits for the next 21 years, and is not even part of the deficit equation.

4:55PM PDT on Aug 14, 2012

Ivy T., thank you for the civility of your response. I cannot speak to your full analysis but note that the figures you provide for the Obama administration’s contribution to existing debt differ from those of factcheck.org:

http://factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

Part of the difference is no doubt that your analysis seems to separate interest costs from spending. But why should it? A responsible President must consider the existing financial situation when creating a budget. President Obama’s profligate spending would be acceptable (though unwise) were our country on sound financial footing, but in the context of a significant existing debt and increasing liabilities it can only be seen as irresponsible.

You blame the bulk of the debt on Republican Presidents and say that it is no good to implicate the Democrats in Congress who voted for more spending. I will agree that Republicans, both in the White House and in Congress, bear some responsibility for the spending that has gotten us where we are. But in almost every case these spending hikes were passed with more Democrat than Republican votes. And our problems with Social Security and Medicare, which now comprise about 41% of federal spending, were created by Democrat majorities more than 20 years ago.

As to President Obama’s relative responsibility for costs in 2009 I would also note the following link:

http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1786

11:01AM PDT on Aug 14, 2012

Ivy T. and Don H.-Please take a handful of green stars out of petty cash, my treat!

10:05AM PDT on Aug 14, 2012

David F, Just perhaps..., if the House and Congress actually didn't do the no no's on anything and everything Obama proposed, for their political gain, we might be even better off, ya think?? Did anyone notice that jobs ARE being created despite the Republicans efforts to that anything that might help? We are not losing jobs like with the Bush admin. yet the right wing news subtly titles their headlines when reporting jobs gained with "only" and tries to dismiss this fact.

9:17AM PDT on Aug 14, 2012

Ivy T. Thank you for taking the time and effort to lay out these facts. Well done!

5:33AM PDT on Aug 14, 2012

Ack, needed more room, this is 3rd part of my post continued-
Interest on $11.7 trillion after G. W. Bush: $0.3 trillion
(detailed calculation)
Grand Total Reagan-Bushes Debt: $12 trillion (as of Sept. 30, 2010).

If the Republicans had not run up this $12 Trillion debt, we could easily have pulled out of the Great Recession. Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong, former Clinton Treasury Department official, observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt). David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. US had been downgraded since it was originally given a AAA rating on its debt by Moody's in 1917. According to the BBC, Standard & Poor's had "lost confidence" in the ability of the United States government to make de

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.