WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO DO WHAT RACHEL JUST DID? She called a liar a liar.

I noticed that one of the other MSNBC people did that yesterday. It's about time.

democratic stategists, radio show hosts and columnists. Those strategists seem to be terrified of calling republicans out as the liars and hypocrits that they are.

liar is overused and underused. In some ways probably access as well. People won't go on her show because they know she will not let them slide. But you know what, she is always polite and treats her guests with respect. She just doesn't let the bs slide.

<snip>

Later in the day, Romney explained how he was confused by the question during a radio appearance. "Of course I support the Blunt amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception," Romney said.

O'Donnell said that Romney lied about failing to understand the question. "He understood that question...He knew exactly what that was," O'Donnell said of the Blunt bill. "He just didn't know what he was supposed to say, so he said what he actually would have said if he wasn't running for office for pete's sake!" O'Donnell later called Romney's reversal "a gift to the White House" and President Obama's re-election campaign.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/lawrence-odonnell-mitt-romney_n_1312868.html

I recall seeing a clip (don't remember the date, which MSNBC program, the liar's name, or the context) where LO calls a lying sack o'shit RW douchebag repeatedly - uttering the exact word 'LIAR!' It was golden...wish I could remember more about it.

This was during the 2004 election when O'Donnell repeatedly called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" leader John O'Neill in 2004 a LIAR

Apparently O'Donnell got his hand slapped for calling O'Neill a liar over and over.

Thank you for confirming that I hadn't just imagined it

I'm glad I located it. I'd never seen LO so furious. Good for you, Larry!!

Now where is the journalistic montage of Obama's flip-flopping on "reforming" Medicare and Social Security?

...and it *might* even make some valid points, as Obama has been far from perfect.

But you're failing to address the whole point of the post: it's still not the same as LYING. People can flip-flop without lying. Every politician flip-flops. Their job is about compromising. It's about making the best decision. It's about taking in new information and (gasp) making adjustments based on the information.

Flip-flopping is a something everyone does. I flip-flopped this morning, when I walked into the store to buy a bagel, but walked out having purchased a pastry, because it smelled good.

Lying, on the other hand, is... lying.

Except, of course, video evidence proves otherwise.

What Mittens did was NOT compromising, he was deliberately not telling the truth.

Enjoy your stay.

from post #4: "Now where is the journalistic montage of Obama's flip-flopping on "reforming" Medicare and Social Security?" being a flip-flop or changed position due to new information rather than an outright lie.

I would hope you know the difference between Romney and Obama. If you dont, maybe you are in the wrong blog. I would hope you know the difference in not fulfilling campaign promises and outright lying.

It's Obama or the Crazy Crowd. Easy choice really.

That's not to say Obama didn't pull the rug out from under those who believed him when he said he wanted Single Payer.

There was no "cmpromise". It was pre-ordained that the plan he was going to cut a deal on was RomneyCare. Max Baucus had people arrested, PNHP Physicians to be particular about it, in the sham hearings.

Look, you can be a homer for Obama. Knock yourself out. But don't kid yourself.

Obama is head and shoulders way better than anything the clowns on the Right are pushing out there but try to be real. Obama isn't a "liberal" . He's an Eisenhower Republican, like much of the present day Democratic Party.

The Republican Party is soo radically crazy there is really no where else to go.

the lack of courage of Obama.

but the thought of seeing Mittens without pants makes me sick.

It is much easier to understand the various anarchist, theocrats, bigots who swarm the GOP field than one who is a moral chameleon and lies constantly.

Anarchists are part of the revolutionary left-wing.

Sorry, I just had to point that out.

They believe in many of the Libertarian views (which are definitely right wing), though anarchist would NOT approve of any type of corporate control that people like Ron Paul push.

Yes, our mass media can only see 2 parties and two points of view and lumps them on the left. But the truth is there are many views and Anarchist's views do NOT always fit on the left.

The anarchist tradition sprang from the libertarian socialist faction in the First International. We are all socialists in the anarchist tradition which split from the Marxist state socialists.

"Socialism will be free or it will not be at all." - anarchist Rudolph Rocker

Sounds like a lost Jimmy Rogers song, or maybe John Prine.

they don't know how to know them by their fruits

Precedent? Go back say 11 years give or take a year. Reason for INVADING Iraq? Not knowing something might happen 9/11 2001? Lie masters CHENEY, Rove, Harris, Blackwell, BUSH, Limbaugh, Palin('game change') Republican Party(all) Rumsfeld, "our troops are ready." They had no body armor, armored vehicles or any say about staying in an war zone for thirty straight months. Sent into harms way by leaders who never served in war and one was technically a deserter. Lies? Been saying it for years and if the leadership of the Democratic Party had called them out early we wouldn't have lost our 'democracy'. GO RACHEL!

If you are a recent convert, please learn that it is the 'Democrat-IC Party'.
Thank you.

You are right and I was misinformed by my brain, got the straight from media matters.org link sent to me by chknltl. Ten-four on the Democratic Party.

and their fabrications wind up hurting us. Let's not forget santorum's fabrications. He really didn't say "black people", he said "blah people." Or his back pedaling about JFK.

...the whole "bracelet" thing. (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/santorums-bogus-euthanasia-claims/)
...the whole "wealth of science" re: porn thing. (http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/santorums_bad_porn_science/singleton/)
...anything that butts up against his faith, which seems to trump actual data, observation, or evidence to the contrary.

And to everything you said!

Thanks I was misinformed on the Democrat-ic. It is the Democratic Party.

I love this place, wish it were a salon somewhere.

his bizarre attempts to emulate real human reactions, his total lack of concern or hesitation as he glibly tosses off lie after lie (unlike W, I think Mitt is smart enough that he knows exactly how much he is lying), his celebration of his lack of human compassion - the Seamus story is not a story of what he thought to be ruthless efficiency; the Seamus story is a story involving a man who views the world through the empty gaze of a sociopath.

I didn't really enjoy the documentary that was posted here a few days ago called "I am fishead" - it seemed like a lot of words without much punch behind all that talk - but it does help me think of Mitt as perhaps the example they were looking for throughout the film of a pure "corporate sociopath."

And the thought of an undistilled sociopath as the President of our country is terrifying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002395369

"Do Psychopaths run the world?"

http://www.thehiddenevil.com/psychopathy.asp

"The Psychopathic Influence"

"Lying, deceiving, and manipulation are natural talents for psychopaths," agreed Dr. Robert Hare, in his book, Without Conscience. "When caught in a lie or challenged with the truth, they are seldom perplexed or embarrassed--they simply change their stories or attempt to rework the facts so that they appear to be consistent with the lie."

Psychopaths are always able to justify their actions, no matter how brutal. They have, "an ability to rationalize their behavior so that it appears warranted, reasonable, and justified," says Dr. Cleckley. Dr. Hare added, "Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects their actions have on others. Often they are completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the pain and destruction they have caused," which, says Dr. Hare, "is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior."

Psychopathy is usually untreatable. Most therapists won't work with them because they often end up damaged in the process. Dr. Hare explained, "Such counseling would be wasted on psychopaths." Some of them will even reflect the wishes of the therapist and pretend to be getting better.

In his book, People of The Lie, psychiatrist Dr. Scott Peck had this to say: "Among themselves therapists will not infrequently refer to a patient's psychopathology as being 'overwhelming.' We mean this literally. We literally feel overwhelmed by the labyrinthine mass of lies and twisted motives ... into which we will be drawn if we attempt to work with such people..."

...by Martha Stout

and I keep a lookout for such articles, so thanks for the links, and keep on spreading the word.

separates the sociopath from the rest of the human race, they really don't care about what people think of them or what they have to do to win they only care about winning. Winning is everything. I think these folks have some primitive idea when people see through them. They don't feel bad, they only want to destroy the people who they think would be credible in keping them from reaching their goals or exposing their true nature in a convincing manner. I don't know if I fully sense this about Mitt because he does not have the slickness that I have seen in some sociopaths. That does not mean he is not incredibly self absorbed, I do see that.

All fit the usual description of "sociopath" - the GOP loves 'em!

Many high school "heros" and Wall Street CEOs fit the description too - America loves 'em!

And they have no idea as to what effect there might be, when the influence of these severely character disordered people saturate the political, financial, and cultural institutions of their own society.

The problem is that people of conscience have no natural understanding or defense against those who have a diminished or no conscience at all. And over time, society goes from good times to bad times as it is slowly indoctrinated and assimilated by this influence. And history has shown us many times, that, when this influence brings society to its inevitable collapse, many of its citizens will die defending it.

There is a growing consensus, as more people learn about this subject, that the United States is very much so, under the influence of Psychopaths and Sociopaths. Just think about who has major influence over our elections and main stream media (M$M), e.g. the corporations and banksters that make up organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations, and the New World Order, etc... And most people are oblivious as to what is going on right in front of their eyes because the truth is way to frightening to consider. It just can't happen here...

This makes it very easy for rich Psychopaths to play their favorite games with real people, such as War Lords and King of the Hill. They also dream of a Utopian world where they are the rulers over the lives and deaths of the world’s vast majority, of whom they consider to be quite inferior. I.e. the people who have a conscience, aka the working class slaves and cannon fodder that must shed their blood sweat and tears in order to help make the psychopaths dreams come true.

I really think this is crucial for the survival of this country and really the world. (It would also be a good thread subject IMHO)

They have to understand that if they break the law they will be punished. If they hurt or kill people, swindle or con them, bribe or cheat them, they will be punished if caught.

That is why there are 2 standards of law right now (Or lawlessness as some people believe because if the law is not enacted equally the law is Not really a law.). One is for the psychopaths and sociopaths and one is for the rest of us. The psychopaths have been successful at preventing their own accountability.

Bring back fully accountable regulators and regulations and you will see a reduction in successful psychopaths.

They have to be afraid of consequences, and right now there isn't too much standing in the way of these people.

We do have to bring back regulations and return the laws of the land. The corruption is so all pervasive I think many of us are simply overwhelmed by it.

Fuckin' ay wow!

When I review the array of wealthy psychopaths, the correlation to inherited wealth (i.e. heirheads) is too stark to ignore. From the Bushies to the Koch siblings to the Waltons to Dickhead Mellon-Scaife, these are people whose emotional/psychological development totally excluded any empathic nurturance. The Mitt-Wit qualifies. It's no wonder that the Age(s) of Monarchs inflicted such suffering and atrocities on the world.

...if there's any data out there showing a correlation between inherited wealth and sociopathic behavior.
It would make sense, when looked at through the lens of lifespan deveopment theory, as I understand it. As we pass through different stages of life, we gain new insights and skills as we're faced with new challenges and increased responsibility.
If you think about it, infants are essentially sociopathic. As much as most parents would be loath to admit it, they don't even "love" anyone in the sense that an adult can love someone--they depend on and NEED their parents.
Anyway: it's only as we develop and mature that we learn things like empathy, compassion, and sacrifice. If you grow up with a small cadre of people (often of a different race) whose sole responsibility is to care for you, and you never have to struggle for anything--other than the approval of your possibly sociopathic family members--it's plausible to me that you would simply never have the need or opportunity to develop a lot of the traits that are contrary to sociopathy. Of course, when you got to a certain level of education, you'd be expected to pay lip service to kindness, sympathy, etc, but by then you would have learned how to feign these qualities. Sociopaths can be extremely intelligent, and are generally gifted manipulators, as there are no actual feelings of sympathy, compassion, or empathy to cloud the execution of their plans.
Their defenders, of course, will point to the "good" their candidates have done. But wouldn't any fantastically wealthy sociopath with designs on the presidency sprinkle a little here and a little there around as they climb the ladder, knowing full well that any kindness shown will end up paying a huge return on their investment when they can later use them as evidence for their compassion, empathy, and humanity?
A good sociopath doesn't care about other people, but they generally do care about getting what they want, and that can include the approval of others. And a sociopath knows a big part of getting what he/she wants is making sure nobody knows he/she is a sociopath.

Teens, for example, are typically narcissistic. It's a "phase." When I observed Dubya, I'm convinced he's a pathological narcissist (NPD in DSM-IV) and all the "frat boy" allusions and his stark mannerisms when before an audience (mugging, etc.) betray arrested psychological development. Indeed, nothing REQUIRED him to mature. As a "fortunate son" he was bailed out of Viet Nam service and even drug abuse while protecting the airspace above Texas from the Viet Cong Air Force. The Bushes are (as a friend would say) "one f*cked-up family."

I see pathologies abounding in such heirheads. It'd be fascinating if there were such a study, but I doubt the subjects would permit any such examination if they had a clue.

the innate integrity that Rachel does.

Having impeccably honest credentials of her own, she can point a finger with impunity and denounce "the emperor with no clothes".

that people that watch Fox or the regular media never see this information.

but if they haven't seen the light by now, they are either brainwashed or incredibly stupid. In any event, IMO, they're hopeless.

I notice she can be critical of a lot of people without hate. That's why I think she is the perfect template for a political tv or radio show host.

will use her pen to circle something on her card when she wants to emphasize a point. It is her exclamation point!

They aren't about being in the right. They are about being in charge.

K&R.

I can state with complete confidence that he's completely lacking in INTEGRITY. The core element in the Mitt-Wit's make-up is "membership" ... he BELONGS to a class and cabal that both demands and expects loyalty, somewhat akin to Skull & Bones. Beyond that, anything is fair game in the pursuit of class entitlement and "principles" are just excess baggage. I grew up in the same locale as him and am VERY familiar with the 'products' of Cranbrook School (i.e. "Academy") and the entitlement class of which he's a charter member. Not admirable at all.

Yes, whenever he opens his mouth ... (rimshot) ...

He says a big lie, and then he looks around with that smug look ... you've seen it. Makes me want to slap him.

Bake

Kudos to Rachel!

courage is in short supply.

...of all - they often fall apart if you call them out for the creeps they are.

Mendacity is ubiquitous among our politicians du jour. Some seem adept at avoiding obvious lies, but few have the integrity we expect of our 'leaders.'

We can argue that the Republicans are 'worse' than the Democrats, but members of both parties are disingenuous and self-serving, particularly those who have become corporate sock puppets.

#Occupy gives me hope that more of us are aware of the moral turpitude now common among our politicians. And, erudite young people like Ms. Maddow give me even more hope that we will take such liars to task.

...I think it's hard to argue the level/prevalence of the mendacity is anywhere close to equal.
It seems like it really has become a cornerstone of the right, to the point where those who dare even *consider* facts or evidence that might indicate another path are shunned.
I'm not Obama's biggest fan (especially in light of his recent support for limiting public protest and assassinating US citizens), but he at least bends the truth to suit his purposes, rather than simply discarding it wholesale.

that's why I acknowledged that we can argue that the Republicans are 'worse' than the Democrats, at least in terms of their apparently deliberate and divisive hate-mongering and fear-mongering.

In previous posts, I've likened the neo-conservative, controlling arm of the Republican Party to batterers. Anyone who even attempts to 'stand up' to them becomes a target of derision, just as do battered persons in intimate relationships.

Furthermore, as a species, we have a tendency to blame 'the victim' (a term I refuse to use when discussing survivors of relationship violence), thus even Democrats indulge in judgmental assessments of our members, without considering how difficult it is to stop batterers (aka bullies).

It is time to do exactly what Ms. Maddow is doing: expose every mendacious cockroach to the light of day. Help the poorly educated, easily propagandized sheeple see that they are naught but pawns to the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics and our global economy.

AND, we must stop swallowing the Corporate Megalomaniacs' divisive red herrings. We must call to task anyone who is disingenuous, regardless of the letter behind their name.

Like Rachel says, this may be a watershed moment for the entire GOP: not so much in terms of Mitt being in danger of losing the primary, but of him having even a chance of beating Obama. I think the GOP last had their last presidential watershed when McCain picked Palin...and I think history has just repeated itself.


rocktivity

I agree w/ one of the above comments that Lawrence O'Donnell has been consistently calling out whenever there is a blatant lie uttered by a Republican political candidate or news media (Fox News). Lawrence issued a challenge to the news media to not use phrases like spinning, mispeak, etc., & to just call what it is a lie. He voiced this concern with Michael Moore last week. I am glad to see that Rachel & I hope others will speak out.

see, if you call the Puppets, er I mean "Pundits" liars, they won't come back, they the corporate masters won't be happy and buy commercials, then the corporate media won't be happy and want to pay the news models millions a year to flash their toothy grins and upper thighs.... it's all just a complicated web that we just shouldn't try to understand or think about.

sort of...

He lies, shakes it up and lies again.

Just like a bad etch-a-sketch drawing, you start over with a different bad sketch.

I really wish that reporters interviewing politicians and other pundits would call them a liar to their face if/or when they lie right then and there. It's always frustrating to watch and wonder why reporters don't challenge liars on the spot. Probably wouldn't go over well if one wanted them back on the show though...

with liars parroting those lies.

One would hope that with "the Google", as Maddow puts it, this sort of thing would be absolute doom for politicians. Yet nothing happens. They keep saying these things and people keep nodding their heads as if everything was on the up and up.

hit back. Democratic politicians, that is. I don't think any of them called Bush a liar. I could be wrong, but the fact that I have to think hard about this is an indication of the cowardice on the Left.

Rachel really kicked some impressive ass last night--she was strong and articulate and spot on. She's one formidible woman!! She has the added ability to be honest, firm, yet civil--a word not in the repukes' vocabulary. And the spooks are finding their heretofore successful draconian tactics no longer work!
(Except for their hopelessly brainwashed followers!)
Kudos to one formidable ally!

... sink his ship with the truth

In the real world, though, we should hear more of it, assuming, of course, it is called for.

He does lie. AND he flip-flops. He was against choice before he was for it, and for it before he was against it.

That's just one example of way too many.

Ted Kennedy may be dead, but that Senate debate between him and Shittsy is a gift that keeps on giving. Shannon O'Brien's gubernatorial debates with the serial bullshitter are also gems.

All hail the video age!

Romney told a story the other day and it wasn't true.
That's a lie.

*tap tap*

Is this mike on?
Hello, I know you're out there . . I can see the threads moving.
What I am, chopped liver?
What have I got to do around here to get a response, drop my pants and fire a rocket?
Romney seems like a great guy . . for me to poop on!
I keed, I keed.
No, seriously, the other day I was checking out his wife and she is one of the homliest women I have ever seen, a real bitch, ya know?
But, evidently Romney likes her, well, someone does, she had 5 boys.
Who knows, it could have been the milkman, the mailman, or the taxman.
Speaking of taxes, Romney wants to lower taxes lower than his popularity rating.
I keed, I keed.
He doesn't have a chance, yet he is in the lead in the GOP race to the bottom.
I wonder if he wants to borrow my pooper scooper when this is all over.
He's gonna need it, considering how much poop he has left laying all around the country by going from state to state.
He couldn't win a Stupid contest, yet he keeps trying.
If I were him, I would have stayed home and humped the neighbor's dog.
But, that's just me.
That probably would have upset Santorum if I would have done that.
I keed, I keed.
We all know that Santorum has been leaking out reports about Gingrich for a long time, trying to get him to drop out of the race.
But, that's what Santorum does best.
No one knows what Gingrich does best because he hasn't worked in 14 years.
That's not work, getting up in front of people and saying what you think and then getting a fat check.
Everyone who speaks in public does that, it's not work.
It's more like a hobby.
Speaking of hobbies, Ron Paul's hobby of running for President is getting old, just like Ron Paul.
I keed, I keed.
I like Ron Paul.
He's great . . for me to poop on!
He keeps talking about the Constitution because he was there when they wrote it.
But, hey, just because he's old doesn't mean he wouldn't make a great President.
Because he wouldn't, he's too radical.
But, that's just me.
What do I know?
I couldn't get elected dog catcher, but that's something I'd never do anyway.
I think it's cruel and inhumane to lock up dogs.
Born free, ya know?
The more the merrier, I say.
Who let the dogs out?
I don't know, I don't know.
Even if I did, I wouldn't tell anyone.
But, that's just me.
Santorum would probably tell.
But, then he can't get elected dog catcher, either.

Dammit, Jim, I'm just a plain country doctor.

If I have to hear "misspoke" or "taken out of context" one more time I'm going to start screaming and not going to stop.

It's LIES.

She is calling Romney out for what he is, a well practiced liar.

largely ignores it while it attacks those who would stick their heads up like that.

the romney defenders of lies will be screaming for her head tomorrow, although it might be muted because the dittohead teabaggers who usually do the loudest screaming have not been supporting romney.

Keep it up Rachel. I would like a nightly update. Perhaps other television hosts will follow your lead eventually.

Could Rachel be the one who delivers us from evil???
Would be great if she starts a trend.

when he claimed he left the Mass. Governor's office to "return to private business", (2007) and a month later started to run for President.

Romney is so transparent when he's lying, and he doesn't even blink!

she`s a rhodes scholar so i`d say she really does`t feel the need to kiss anyone`s ass.

Now you know who Rachel Maddow is.

She is everything Limbaugh is not!

I think it is because all those accusations by conservatives of there being a liberal slant in the media have essentially gotten under their skin, and now most media outlets want to appear to be centrist by not trying harder to call the right-wing out on their con-jobs. Their goal is to attract viewers of all political persuasions so they can make a profit. Ultimately, this leads to false equivalency among voters, and many being uninformed about stances of both sides of the spectrum, and I find it sickening.

"He has the ability to make statements that are so far outside the parameters of logic that they leave you speechless"
--Patti Davis (formerly Patricia Ann Reagan) talking about her father, The Way I See It

"President Reagan doesn't always check the facts before he makes statements, and the press accepts this as kind of amusing."
--former president Jimmy Carter, March 6, 1984

"Ronald Reagan is the first modern President whose contempt for the facts is treated as a charming idiosyncrasy."
--James David Barber, presidential scholar, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency, Mark Hertsgaard

"His errors glide past unchallenged. At one point...he alleged that almost half the population gets a free meal from the government each day. No one told him he was crazy. The general message of the American press is that, yes, while it is perfectly true that the emperor has no clothes, nudity is actually very acceptable this year."
--Simon Hoggart, in The Observer (London), 1986

http://thereaganyears.tripod.com/reaganquotes.htm

or let me amend that, it is so difficult for a liberal to call a conservative a liar today.

Our MSM will not put up with it. Rachel can do it because of her newfound fame and I am thrilled that she does. More power to her!

But others do not have that media wattage. They need access to the bully pulpit.

How do we get that?

through