Does any prominent Republican care that Romney “won” last night by lying and then telling lies about lying? Does any “objective journalist”?
Not a single one of the GOP spinners and Red Team pundits now doing the victory dance for Romney’s debate performance has any qualms about the fact that Romney won by lying and telling lies about lying. They just don’t care.
And of course neither do the “objective” political reporters. I didn’t hear a single one even ask whether successful deception is actually a Presidential characteristic.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
9 thoughts on “Serum coliform count, cont’d.”
You know, perhaps Team Obama is collecting these lies and post-debate “corrections” to be used at a later date. Mitt could be in for his own zingers.
Successful deception is actually a valid Presidential characteristic. Do you think that Obama believes half the stuff he says about the wonders of small business and the evil Chinaman? Do you think he could get elected dogcatcher if he couldn’t regurgitate guff on demand? Spin and puffery are deceptive, and they’re every politician’s stock in trade.
My problem with Romney is not that he is deceptive, but that he lies: beyond spin, beyond puffery, even beyond raison d’etat.
I haven’t heard the following perspective on the debates: While the President may have seemed a bit sleepy last night, he didn’t make any noticeable gaffes, whereas Romney made a bunch. His gaffes (Big Bird, being a jerk to Jim Lehrer, his weird smirk) and and outright lies (about his own tax plan) are already being made into some very effective ads. These will actually do far more damage to Romney than Obama’s lackluster performance might help him.
While Romney may have “won” the night, he doesn’t have anything to take away from the debate. Which part of Obama’s performance can be made into an ad? The fact that he looked down at his podium? That he wasn’t acting ADHD? That he seemed too cool? Meanwhile, Obama is already pretty effectively pounding Romney on the campaign trail for things he said in the debate, and for his almost instantaneous shape-shifting.
I think, whatever the immediate reactions, the debate will end up being a net win for Obama.
[BHO] didnâ€™t make any noticeable gaffes, whereas Romney made a bunch. His gaffes (Big Bird, being a jerk to Jim Lehrer, his weird smirk) and and outright lies (about his own tax plan) are already being made into some very effective ads. These will actually do far more damage to Romney than Obamaâ€™s lackluster performance might help him…While Romney may have â€œwonâ€ the night, he doesnâ€™t have anything to take away from the debate. Which part of Obamaâ€™s performance can be made into an ad?
I haven’t formally debated in over three decades so am out of practice thinking about these things, but I noticed a number of times that BHO got Rmoney to say some very damaging things. I wondered why BHO looked low-energy and why he wasn’t hitting hard or controlling the show (no tax rate? No 47%? No foreign gaffes??).
Maybe it was good enough to have gotten Rmoney to say some very damaging things and look like a rich d!ck, but lots of opportunity for immediately scoring damaging points went unused. Maybe just getting the gaffes out was good enough last night.
And could see very easily Air Force One arrive and depart from my house, fantastic plane.
The end goal of a presidential debate is very different than the goal of a formal debate. Scoring debating points is a possible means to the end for Obama but worthless in and of itself.
We’ll change all the coinage.
Goodbye E pluribus unum, hello, “Just Win, Baby”.
The first is just collectivist heresy anyways, and not even in English — hell, it’s in a dead language.
What was it Ahmed Chalabi said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu6Kgp88
Romeny sounded like a fast-talking salesman, which is, of course, exactly what he is.
He said what he thought that audience at that moment wanted to hear, which is, of course, exactly what he does.
He had no thought for the future consequences of such glibness, which is, of course, his primary trait as a (rather lousy) politician.
He came across as a fast-talking, breathless automaton, which is, of course, how he has come across to most people throughout the last eighteen months.
He dominated the debate, and “won” it as the more “alpha” male, which is, of course, what has so turned the electorate off from him.
He uttered lots of words in fast-moving flip-flops from prior held positions, which is, of course, what everyone has come to expect from him.
In short, he changed nothing (but his words, which is itself a “plus ca change” kind of non-change) in this debate …
… and will consequently gain nothing, and quite probably lose support, in the event.
PS And I would add … we now are confirmed that his only skill — his only skill — is as a fast-talking pitch artist. He is a salesman, first, foremost, and only.
Comments are closed.