There IS a way to derail the Romney lie machine

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:24 PM - Edit history (17)

There is a way to counter the Romney lie machine, but it is not calling him a liar.

Rather than complaining about lies defensively (which is a losing proposition) the lies need to be examined as mere pieces of evidence, relatively unimportant in and of themselves, that support the active case that Mitt Romney lacks the integrity to be President.

Not whining about lies. Not defending Obama against lies. The substance of the many charges against Obama is almost incidental. See, it doesn't really matter when some plant closed or what funds were shifted where and why. People's eye glaze over. It's heard as a "he said, he said."

The lies only matter as an indicator of Romney's fitness for office.

The argument is this:

[font color=green][font size=3]Resolved: IF Mitt Romney and his campaign are lying continually THEN Mitt Romney lacks the integrity to be President.[/font color][/font]

The only counter to that resolution is, "Mitt Romney can lie continually and still have the integrity to be President." Nobody wants to make that argument. Few voters would like to think of themselves as accepting that proposition. (Though millions do, of course.) So the resolution must be adopted provisionally.

Then the question becomes simple and narrow. Is Mitt, in fact, lying? If so, it has already been established that he lacks the integrity to be President.

(By the way, this would not work against an incumbent. But Mitt is the relatively unknown challenger, so this would work because it is ultimately about vetting him for office.)

People assume that all politicians are liars. "Both sides do it." So the charge must not be lying, but rather unfitness to hold the public trust, as indicated by the chronic lying.

Now, perhaps it could be argued that after tallying up his hundreds of lies there are not quite enough lies to disqualify Mitt for high office. Perhaps Mitt could try to argue that some good presidents have lied almost as much as he does. Good luck with that.

Would the public object to ads stating that Mitt Romney lacks the integrity to be President? Yes, they would. It would be a real turn-off if done in that sleazy, insinuating way of negative ads.

Unless the ads are framed as a simple determination, rather than an accusation. The meat of the argument is putting the first question on the table.

1) Should someone who lies all the time be president?
2) Does Romney lie all the time?

No photo negatives and scary music. No subliminal mind-fuck. A dispassionate question asked more in sadness than in anger.

"Most of us don't think that a man who lies about everything important should be President. So it is a serious charge to say that Mitt Romney lies continually. I wouldn't make it lightly. But we can look at the evidence."

And none of this "fact-checkers say..." That's very 20th century. Nobody trusts "fact checkers" or newspaper editorial boards anymore. Just state the lies, alongside the truth. Tick it off, in businesslike fashion. (In practice, 'presenting the evidence' is merely asserting that the lies are lies. The real examination of the evidence is outside the scope of ads. That is what a national dialog is for. If anyone thinks the evidence offered in a 30 second ad is insufficient then we are happy to back it up. All day long. Everyday. "Can you back up this suggestion that Mitt lies too much to be President?" I'm glad you asked... how long do you have?)

Again, this point is so important... when Mitt lies about Medicare the counter is not that Obama is a defender of medicare. We should not be talking about whether or not Obama eliminated the welfare work requirements. Obama ought not be on the defensive.

See, these lies mean nothing to us for what they say. We are above that. We have nothing to hide and nothing to apologize for.

The lies are important only as evidence of a potentially disqualifying lack of character.

Once the premise that being an habitual liar is disqualifying is put on the table everything clicks into place. The premise is damn hard to challenge. Premise > Evidence > Conclusion.

Should someone who lies all the time be president?

Should someone who lies all the time be president?

Should someone who lies all the time be president?

Shift the question from, "Is Romney a liar?," to, "If Romney is a liar, would that disqualify him?"

THAT is the question we want the media to be forced to take up. The media has largely accepted that Mitt is a chronic liar only because lying is not considered all that important. The lies are established. The trick is to make the lying important.

Whether Mitt is a liar isn't the conclusion, it is merely a question to be examined, a fact to be established, because it answers the larger question of whether he should be President.