Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Fact checking for thee, but not for me" by Greg Sargent at WP
Fact checking for thee, but not for meBy Greg Sargent at WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/fact-checking-for-thee-but-not-for-me/2012/08/28/cccd6036-f11d-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html
"SNIP...........................................
The upshot is that Romney doesnt have an intellectual objection to fact checkings limitations in a general sense, at least when its applied to the Obama campaign. In that case, fact checking is a legitmate exercise Obama should heed. But at the same time, the Romney campaign explicitly says it doesnt see it as legitimate or constraining when its applied to him.
By the way, this isnt the first time the Romney camp has insisted that it is not beholden to the standards it expects the Obama campaign to follow. For the better part of a year, Romney has hammered Obama over the net jobs lost on his watch, to paint him as a job destroyer, a metric that factors the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost at the start of Obamas term, before his policies took effect. Yet Romney advisers have argued, with no apparent sense of irony, that his own record should not be judged by one net jobs number.
In this sense, the Romney campaign continues to pose a test to the news media and our political system. What happens when one campaign has decided there is literally no set of boundaries that it needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of its assertions? The Romney campaign is betting that the press simply wont be able to keep voters informed about the disputes that are central to the campaign, in the face of the sheer scope and volume of dishonesty it uncorks daily.
Paul Krugmans question continues to remain relevant: Has there ever been a candidacy this cynical?
............................................SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 935 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Fact checking for thee, but not for me" by Greg Sargent at WP (Original Post)
applegrove
Aug 2012
OP
meow2u3
(24,738 posts)1. Here's my comment: a reply to another one
BBear1
6:33 PM EDT
Did the Republican Prty Platform abolish that "false witness" commandment? Apparently, truth and honest are no longer "family values".
Unrecommend
Recommended by 3 readers and you
ReplyReport
meow2u3
10:49 PM EDT
Republicans seem to think "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" doesn't apply to them. After all, they're such devout Christians that they can lie, cheat, steal, and even kill without any stain of sin touching them
applegrove
(117,885 posts)2. Great point.