The apology comment?

The problem is this kind of shit is easy and has no penalty. What you are talking about is 1) difficult or currently impossible and 2) effectively guarantees you lose the election.

Or this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-romn...-politics.html

Guess it's a good thing the republicans have already pledged to not "let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

In other news,


http://www.theonion.com/video/tampa-...ef=recirc_auto

What's the problem with that? The Obama campaign has been calling Romney a liar for months. Two weeks ago they said Romney's "campaign is built on a tripod of lies". They also gave a nice choice a few months back that Romney was either a liar or a felon. Fact is both candidates are dishonest when it suits them and each calls out the other's dishonesty when they believe it to be to their benefit.

I would agree with you and leave it at that in most cases. But in this case, Paul Ryan gave a speech at the RNC that was counter to actual fact checking at every other word, and the republican response was essentially "Yeah, so?" In this case, Mitt Romney has completely "re-invented" himself from "moderate conservative" (most in the republican party these days would have called him a "vile baby-killing liberal," just a few short years back) to staunch far-right pro-life anti-universal-healthcare defender-of-all-that-is-Reagan. In this case, the republicans aren't even trying to hide their lies.

As a semi-self-respecting American voter, I expect a little reach around. At least try to pretend you're not lying to my face.

The response to the Ryan fact checking was "Yeah, so?" and they have generally decided to not "let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" because at least some of the fact checking has been bullshit. We can use the Janesville auto plant as an example because it was widely reported as a Ryan lie.

In his speech Ryan said:

"President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

Where is the lie, one so blatant the media had a conniption about it for a week or so?

I suppose some of the media had a week long conniption about as much as Fox News had a week of republican solidarity. All that crap evens out in the wash, at this point.

But the lie, in that one instance, is in the implied blame on President Obama for the closing of the GM plant. The plant actually closed while President Bush was still in office. But somehow, President Obama is to blame not only for the plant closing, but for it not opening its doors again? And yes, that blame was placed squarely at the president's feet, otherwise Ryan wouldn't have mentioned them both in the same breath.

Sure, they both play those games. And sure, President Obama has softened some positions and outright changed some others, but he hasn't completely redefined himself almost to the point of speciation the way Romney has. And like I said, while the democrats are most certainly lying to us, they aren't reveling in it the way the republicans seem to lately.

Minute as that distinction may be, it's all I have to distinguish the two since they seem to share common goals these days. Ask Governor Mitt Romney of Massachussetts...

The plant closed in April of 2009. I may be no calendar scholar but I'm pretty sure January of 2009 comes before April of 2009.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee...9/daily16.html

Here's a chance to brush up on your calendar scholarliness:

If an article is written on December 29, 2008, and references a plant closing on December 23 in the past tense, what is the latest year to which that article can be referring?

There is no need to re-write the question in your answer.

"Oh, but 50 people stuck around until April to crank out a few Izuzu parts and decommission the plant! It's clearly Obama's fault!"

Bullshit.

http://media.gazettextra.com/img/pho...6b01a9d617b3e9