I have repeatedly leveled the charge that Mitt Romney is a sociopath. That’s a serious charge, and I do not make it lightly. One symptom of sociopathy is pathological lying. Another symptom is shamelessness – and Mitt Romney is a shameless liar.
Romney lies incessantly and repeatedly without the slightest hint of remorse. In my previous post Debatabull, I suggested that President Obama was understandably taken aback by Romney's bald-faced lies during their recent debate.
Mild-mannered pundit David Gergen seems to agree with my assessment. As he put it: “I think [Obama] was surprised that Romney was just sort of flat out lying."
• • •
Before going further, I acknowledge that the official stance of the American Psychiatric Association is that psychopathy and sociopathy are misnomers. That may be the official stance, but I find those terms useful. So do many other people – even some who disagree with my charge that Mitt Romney is sociopath.
I suspect one reason for that disagreement is they don't make a distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy. To my mind, a psychopath is someone like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, while a sociopath could be your boss or your spouse – or a candidate for President.
• • •
Certainly, that conclusion can be drawn from the book The Sociopath Next Door by Dr. Martha Stout. Another relevant book is The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. It elaborates on research and clinical studies used for the “Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R)” by Dr. Robert D. Hare. That checklist forms the basis for a diagnosis of psychopathy.
Both books affirm the charge that such people are all around us, and Ronson's book states that corporate executives are much more likely to exhibit such aberrant behavior. An excerpt from that book suggests I may be too kind with my distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy:
Bob seemed melancholy. It was as if the crash had made him introspective. He said, almost to himself, "I should never have done all my research in prisons. I should have spent my time inside the Stock Exchange as well."
I looked at Bob.
"Do you mean that?" I asked.
"I mean it," he said.
"But surely stock market psychopaths can't be as bad as serial killer psychopaths," I said.
"Serial killers ruin families," shrugged Bob. "Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies."
This - Bob was saying - was the straightforward solution to the greatest mystery of all: why is the world so unfair? Why all that savage economic injustice, those brutal wars, the everyday corporate cruelty? The answer: psychopaths. That part of the brain that doesn't function right. You're standing on an escalator and you watch the people going past on the opposite escalator. If you could climb inside their brains you would see we aren't all the same. We aren't all good people just trying to do good. Some of us are psychopaths. And psychopaths are to blame for this brutal, misshapen society. They're the jagged rocks thrown into the still pond.
• • •
That brings me back to Mitt Romney. Judge for yourself whether he exhibits any or all of these symptoms of sociopathy/psychopathy:
- Early onset of behavioral problems such as bullying
- Lack of empathy
- Lack of remorse
- Glibness and superficial charm
- Grandiose sense of self-worth
- Manipulative and conning
- Pathological lying
- Parasitic lifestyle
- Feeling self-entitled
- Inappropriate language and behavior
Statements like “I like firing people” and “The poor are doing just fine” are certainly indicative of a lack of empathy and inappropriate language, particularly given the office he’s seeking. And of course, there’s his brutal dismissal of half (47%) of the population as freeloaders and moochers.
As for bullying, there’s the episode at prep school in which Mitt got others to hold a boy down, while Mitt cut his hair. Mitt conveniently (but unconvincingly) claimed he didn’t recall that episode, but four other participants recalled it vividly. Denial is another symptom of sociopathy.
Mitt’s behavior during the Vietnam War seems to repeat that pattern. Mitt marched in favor of the war, while using his religion to get out of fighting himself. Strictly speaking, such behavior may not be deemed bullying; but there's no denying it was cowardly.
Then there’s the episode when Mitt strapped the family dog to the top of his car for an eleven-hundred mile trip. According to Mitt, the dog preferred to be treated so miserably. Again, some may not view that as bullying, but it certainly displays a lack of empathy.
One could also reasonably argue the business methods of Bain were a form of bullying; certainly the workers displaced by Bain view it that way. Such methods are sometimes referred to as “chainsaw capitalism”, a term coined to reflect the practices of another “job-creator”, vulture capitalist Al Dunlap.
• • •
But nothing says sociopath so much as Mitt’s pathological lying. Take his debate with President Obama – please! Here’s a list compiled by The Daily Kos of the lies and distortions Romney stooped to in that debate:
- Saying about twice as many people were unemployed as actually are, thrice during the debate.
- Claiming energy jobs that are already forecasted would result from his presidency.
- Claiming $90 billion was spent on green jobs rather than less than half that.
- Saying half the businesses went bankrupt versus 13 percent (at most), well within the set aside for the nascent industry.
- Slamming the president for $716 billion in Medicare cuts included in the Ryan budget he endorsed, and promoting a private Medicare voucher program that would create issues with affordability and access.
- Hiring more teachers instead of the fewer he advocated for earlier, or would exist under a Ryan budget.
- Wanting small business tax cuts for all companies paying through owners (including Koch Industries).
- Cutting PBS’ subsidy of $280 million in his painstaking quest for solvency.
- Losing sight of the big picture, as he has zero – not the six he said – studies that find his $5 trillion tax cut can be done without raising taxes on the middle class
- Overstating the rise in recent health care premiums by 50 to 100 percent, and misrepresenting the joint effort on health care reform as unilateral.
- Saying he’ll repeal Dodd Frank. But his repeal rather than the bill would be the “biggest kiss to Wall Street”.
- Denying companies that outsource receive tax benefits, including moving expenses and many others.
Despite such outrageous behavior, the punditocracy declared Mitt the winner, and the hoi polloi gave Romney a bump in the polls. That such an obvious pathological liar continues to be taken seriously in his run for the highest office in the land bespeaks a serious problem in America, a problem that goes far beyond Mitt Romney. It appears we have lost our moral compass.
Can it be we have become so inured to lying that we don’t react to it with the righteous indignation it deserves? Or have we become so conditioned by advertising and faux news that we can no longer distinguish between the truth and a lie? Have we fallen so far that we will accept a candidate who so disgraces himself? Can’t we see that in so doing, we disgrace ourselves?
In short, have we at long last no shame?
©2012 Tom Cordle
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jeremiah Horrigan
koshersalaami
Kim Gamble
Stacey Youdin
Steven J. Gulitti
Ben Sen
Salon.com
Comments
Obama promises to be tougher in the next debate. He'd damned well better be. I think he should dust off the word "liar" and use it liberally.
that we don’t react to it with the righteous indignation it deserves?
Yessir! We are busy folks. With families! Got no time to discern truth. And anyway, whenever a Talking Head comes on to say someone be lyin, well, he or she no doubt is lying.
~
Reason is thrown out the window in “Hard times” like we face now, they say.
Emotional heartstringing-along is the only way to go.
Mitt DID win the debate under this paradigm.
A lyin liar? So what??
~
Joe I hope will go down in flames tonight or maybe ascend the national soul.
I just hope to god he is not lukewarm, and careful.
Ah the Nation is prepped good. Let us see how Joe will do.
Chicken got a good point. “Liar” is a good word to use.
~
Ha mitt a sociopath? Could be, thanks for the definition.
Psychopath? Oh these definitions always change, usually so as to not demean or marginalize utterly evil m-fers. They say these days tis an offensive term for someone who is antisocial, aggressive and unempathetic.
~
Remember mitt is a Mormon. Please. I hate to say it cuz I know I must not be offensive. But those folks are…different..and they are NOT Christian, no damn way.
As if I give a fuck.
Biden was actually my choice in 2008, but that was an election in which people truly, desperately wanted change. Change we could believe in turned about to be something less, but I can live with that -- I'm a realist.
What I can't live with is a pathological liar, who tells bald-faced lies repeatedly and incessantly and flip-flops like a fish out of water. With his facile smile and greasy hair, some see Mitt as a Presidential candidate straight out of Central Casting. I don't; I see him as a used-car salesman straight out of Central Casting.
Sorry, that comparison is an insult to used-care salesmen.
A substantial portion of the American electorate seems to have a warm spot in their heart for perky. Witness the twice-elected cheerleader with the same carefully-coiffed hair and same too-easy smile who promised us Morning in America, but led our descent into Mourning for America.
You raise an interesting specter: the reason Obama was thrown off is that he didn't expect that level of deceit on national television under such intense scrutiny. His adherence to the facts, certainly in terms of his intentions, renders him powerless in the face of someone so unscrupluous, but it represents a large segment of the population which is more likely to vote him in than it is Obama.
Unlike Joan Walsh, and many liberals who I deeply respect, I'm not an optimist, and since nobody is paying me to pretend to lie about what I think, I won't.
I have no brief for the fairy-tales of Mormonism, but Romney's faith is the least of my concerns about the man. On the other hand, anyone who'd swallow such an obvious concoction as the Book of Mormon might well believe anything, including that his outrageous lies are actually true. By my analysis, that would take him from sociopath to psychopath.
I suspect Joe will do well enough, but no matter how well he does, it won't be enough. At this point, Obama has to pull his own ass -- and ours -- out of the fire. Let's see if he has the guts to call a liar a liar.
When a man s0 callously and blatantly reverses himself on everything he's been saying for months -- if not years -- it's bound to be greatly disconcerting. Surely Obama was not prepped to respond to Mitt suddenly taking all Obama's positions and abandoning his own.
BUT ... the measure of a man is how he reacts to the unexpected, and by that measure, Obama was a colossal failure in that debate. My point is that it shouldn't matter that Obama failed -- with his blatant lies and distortions, his opponent clearly disqualified himself from consideration as President. That half the voters don't see that concerns me deeply.
I agree with Matt. LIAR!
I'm just glad he's not Jewish. Son of Sam and Bernie Madoff were bad enough.
Matt, and Tom,
Part of what brought Joe McCarthy down was Edward R. Murrow deciding he'd had enough. There is no one other than Jon Stewart, who I'm afraid doesn't have that kind of bipartisan stature, who would do that now as the media simply aren't independent enough any more. The press should have been all over that. They weren't. That's what's different. That great list provided by Tom: The public isn't aware of it. That's the real problem, not that his lying is considered OK but that the public believes the differences are differences of interpretation or differences of opinion, not flat out differences of fact.
That, and the real problem---summarized quite nicely in your title.
Saw something the other day . . Newt Gingrich saying "it's impossible to debate a liar" in reference to earlier debates with Romney.
You said Mitt is a "cocktail shaker's worth of crazy", and I'd only add that he's long on the vermouth and short on the gin. To continue the alcoholic metaphor, I'd also add that he's definitely not stirring. But then that's to be expected, since Mittmormon is ostensibly a tee-totaller,
What -- you didn't know Mormons are also one of the Lost Tribes? And just like their OT brethren, the practiced polygamy. At least that cuts down on adultery.
Yes, I find it deeply troubling that this is basically a 50/50 election, when Romney so obviously represents EVERYTHING that got us into our current financial straits -- and is a pathological liar to boot.
You pose a good question -- is Mitt a sociopath, or is he just doing his conniving best to represent a major party that has itself become sociopathic? The answer? Yes and yes.
On Newt: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And speaking of being right on a rare occasion, let us hope Anne Coulter proves to be prophetic: "If we nominate Mitt Romney, we will lose."
According to those who managed Newt's campaign (I wanted to say affairs, it wasn't a question of his intelligence -- it was a question of his being lead around by his wrong head.
I understand your dilemma, but I repeat what I've said to others: To refuse to choose between the only two possible choices is not a sign of morality; it is a sign of immaturity. By not voting for the lesser of two evils, if that's how you choose to frame it, in essence you are voting for the worser of two evils.
Thanks for the kind words, and I would very much appreciate the opportunity to have this appear where it might open the eyes of those who are -- unfathomably -- still undecided.
arguably the study of sociopathy is mostly in its infancy. the field is potentially revolutionary [maybe already so]. its really great to see some of this making its way into the public consciousness but its not much of a dent so far. [similar to evolutionary psychology]. Ive long said that psychology should be a basic subject in school. in many ways its even more important than other subjs already taught eg history. [or shall we say, interrelated to every subj taught].
there is excellent new neurological research into psychopathy that seems to prove that its measurable via brain scans. thats a revolutionary concept. we have lie detector tests-- why not psychopathy tests?
a stunning concept few have faced or considered, but is quite plausible, is that psychopathy is probably an *adaptive* quality among humans. its similar to the prisoners dilemma in game theory. there is some incentive and advantage to "cheat". psychopaths achieve their ends. psychopathy is an effective strategy in particular environments where it goes undetected and unmitigated.
also lets take into account that psychopaths routinely achieve the absolute highest echelons of power. it seems likely they are in fact *more likely* to be in positions of power than average positions because those positions fit into their personalities.
hitler anyone? an example of an entire country willingly appointing a psychopath. the oligarch financiers that compare obama to hitler are basically "projecting".... and the comparison to romney is far more apropos....
no argument. romney is a bottom feeding scum sucking liar.
so is obama. obama can't call out romney for his lies without copping to his own but he will nonetheless. obama's administration is one long torturous flip flop of what he promised us so he could ramp up his popularity and win. obama is shameless in never feeling responsible to explain himself for his betrayals.
best, libby
in this case people see Obama as "our liar" and that makes it more okay ... which is sad
Neither one is "my liar"
A narcissistic sociopath is someone with a combination of narcissistic personality disorder and definitive behavioral signs of sociopathy. People with narcissism are characterized by their excessive and persistent need for others' admiration and positive reinforcement. They generally have grandiose opinions of themselves and believe they are superior to other people. Narcissists are also frequently convinced that they are above the normal responsibilities and obligations of everyday life, so they usually have significant difficulties maintaining employment or relationships as a result. The narcissistic sociopath has this type of personality along with a noticeable lack of regard for the rights of others and a tendency to regularly violate those rights.
One noted difference between a narcissistic sociopath and people with narcissism alone is that the narcissist with the sociopathy reacts strongly and sometimes even violently to negative feedback. True sociopaths generally do not respond to criticism or care what others may think of them. A narcissistic sociopath is unable to tolerate criticism and needs constant praise, as well as deference from other people. Many with this condition present themselves in the best light possible and are able to easily charm others to gain their trust.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-narcissistic-sociopath.htm
The bolded parts are what I have identified in Romney (and Ryan, truth be told) and think they are some of what distinguishes him from the garden variety sociopath. It also contributes to an explanation of his strong family ties and his wife's and kids' apparent adoration of him - the need for support and adoration and skill at developing it.
Note both Romney's and Ryan's reactions to criticism. They restrain it well, both are well socialized (I am beginning to believe that provides a good reason for strict, rule-bound religious training - it gives some restraint to these personality types)
I'm not sure my source is as good as yours, my research definitely wasn't as deep but I was just acting on a feeling and was rushing.
"BUT ... the measure of a man is how he reacts to the unexpected, and by that measure, Obama was a colossal failure in that debate."
I am a staunch Obama supporter and I will continue to be, but he was caught off guard in an arena where he was supposed to be the Big Dog. He needs to fix that by whatever means necessary.
(And it is naive to say that a politician could be disqualified because he lied. We'd have no one in office.) Great post nevertheless. Rated.
Absolutely true. And what reveals an obvious truth about Obama's entire tenure is his problematic nature that allows things like Romney's lies (and the entire Republican/Democrat debacle) to BE "unexpected". Unexpected? Really? REALLY?? WTF???
I can no longer even believe what a ridiculous display all of this is.
http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-why-romney-beat-obama
"Obama is the king of trying to reconcile what cannot be reconciled. He calls this process consensus, but in stark political terms it is nothing but capitulation. Obama cannot even muster support for Democratic low-hanging fruit like Social Security. When the moderator asked the president if he saw a difference with his opponent on Social Security he happily replied, “You know, I suspect that on Social Security we’ve got a somewhat similar position.” Those words may have been shocking but they were true. It is Obama who appointed a deficit reduction commission which called for cuts to entitlement programs. Only intransigence from Republicans prevented him from further double dealing with the people he is supposed to be working against.
"The president floundered uncharacteristically because he forgot that his audience wasn’t made up of the Republicans he is so anxious to please, but voters who dared to think they were going to hear why he should remain in the Oval Office instead of Romney. As the Democrats have moved ever more to the right and become more dependent upon corporate largesse, Obama and other Democrats have gone along with their program even as they pretend to be an opposition. Obama was caught unprepared and unable to state plainly how he differs from his opponent, mostly because he doesn’t differ very much.
"It was Romney who took the supposedly populist, progressive Obama to task for bailing out the banks, calling it the “biggest kiss to New York banks I’ve ever seen.” As with other Romney rejoinders the president was silenced, furiously scribbling notes as he tried to compose himself.
“The Obama who stood on stage is the real Obama.”
"Unfortunately, most Democrats still refuse to admit what happened right before their eyes. While criticizing the president’s debate performance they were not willing to admit that the Obama who stood on stage is the real Obama. Stripped of a script he was laid bare before the world, an empty suit devoid of any conviction except the desire to stay in office."
I'm not quite as reticent as you when it comes to criticizing the person because I believe a person's policies flow from what he is and what he believes -- that's the idea that character matters. I'll admit, tho, I am at a loss as to what Romney truly believes. But that kind of spinelessness and rootlessness is a danger in it's own right.
How so? Under our system, no person is able to have it entirely his own way. But with Romney, that only makes things worse because he's proven time and again he will bend his own beliefs -- such as they are -- to ingratiate himself with the worst of his Party. One can hardly imagine the disaster that would befall this country should he serve with a Republican House and Senate dominated by intransigent -- and too often ignorant -- Teapartians.
Thanks for your kind words, you've given me more than I can respond to in a comment. But let me touch on a couple of things.
First let me address your last: I'm not aware of a clinical distinction between a sociopath and a psychopath; and as I pointed out in the disclaimer in my post, the official stance of the American Psychiatric Association is that psychopathy and sociopathy are misnomers. I suspect that follows from typical scientific reticence and caution, and from an understanding that aberrant behavior -- like normal behavior -- manifests itself across a broad spectrum.
That said I final it useful to distinguish between the two because to do otherwise puts a sociopath like Romney in the same league with a psychopath like Ted Bundy. I don't think that's a distinction without a difference.
As to another point you raise, it's certainly true that there are positive aspects to aberrant behavior. For instance, it's widely recognized that artists and other creative types are often driven by their neuroses. And to take things to their illogical extreme, Hitler was responsible for the Autobahn and the Volkswagen.
As the old saw goes, if you're odd and unsuccessful, you're crazy; but if you're odd and successful, you're eccentric. In any case, to be far more frank than I ought to be, the subject fascinates me because I recognize some of the symptoms in myself. And my analyst told me I was right out of my head.
What can I say? Great minds, same channel. And yes, Ryan is doing well in the debate, but that only confirms my suspicion he is nearly as good an actor as Romney. The sad thing is that so many will mistake his ability to cough-up practiced lines as proof of his fitness to govern. It isn't.
You and I may butt heads, but on this we certainly agree:
"we live in an advertising nation with us with consumer identities. the best liar wins and sells the product, the hell with truth and deregulation is making that all the more insane.
no argument. romney is a bottom feeding scum sucking liar."
As I alluded to in my post, I believe the acceptance and prevalence of the Perpetual Lie (advertising) conditions us and makes us all the more susceptible to the Big Lie (politics). As is the case with Wall Street, the rise of Madison Avenue coincides with the decline of Main Street. See "The Selling of the President" by Joe McGinnis for details.
Where we part company, of course, is on our view of Obama. I'm certainly not saying he hasn't deeply disappointed me on several occasions, but you see him as a pimp and a war criminal. I don't; I see him as a centrist compromiser, and as a frustrated community organizer adrift in the Washington Whorehouse. Not saying he hasn't dipped into the coffers himself, just saying that unlike most of his brethren in Washington, I don't believe he feels good about it.
I could be wrong about that, but regardless, there is nothing that could make me risk doing anything to increase the chances that the "bottom feeding scum sucking liar" replaces him. That's why I can't possibly follow your Pyrrhic endorsement of Stein.
They were not facts, merely reiterations of twisted numbers and Randian hyberbole by an acolyte of the socio/psycopath whose coat tails he has his grasp on.
Thanks for adding to the discussion. The distinctions you point out are helpful, especially the point that a narcissist seeks approval, while the true sociopath has no need of approval to sustain his distorted self-image. I would only add that the true sociopath often does seek approval as a means to further his selfish aims.
Such distinctions reflect the reality that aberrant behavior manifests itself across a broad spectrum. In that regard, some of the behavior of most of us falls somewhere on the aberrant scale far more often than we care to admit -- especially to ourselves.
Thanks for visiting. I, too, support President Obama, tho I confess he has disappointed me deeply on several occasions, particularly on his failure to prosecute torturers and banksters.That said, I understand the political realities -- Washington is a cathouse and an outhouse, not a schoolhouse and a church-house.
That said, I do take exception to your blanket condemnation that all politicians lie, and exception based on the reality that things are seldom so black and white in this world. Yes, all politicians deal in exaggerations and distortions; they stretch the truth, and they often tell only their side of the truth. But the same can be said for most people I've met.
That said, there is a difference in kind between stretching the truth and obliterating it. Or to riff on an old aphorism, a half-truth is better than none. Or to make an obvious analogy, Obama is CNN (how I wish I could say MSNBC), and Romney is Fux News.
Sorry to disagree, but I don't think anyone expected or anticipated that Mitt Romney would brazenly reverse himself on ALL his previous positions in that first debate. In essence, he usurped Obama's positions on most policies. Had I been in Obama's position, I would have been taken aback as well at such audacity.
But knowing me, I suspect my response to such perfidy would have been far more vociferous -- and probably obscene to boot. That said, that's no way to appear Presidential. Unfortunately, Obama didn't over-react or act Presidential.
As for your blanket dismissal of politics and both candidates, I'm afraid you're falling for the false equivalency trap. While I understand the impulse to say "a pox on both their houses", I don't believe we've had a wider gap (and thus a clearer choice) between candidates since Nixon/McGovern. Obama's considerable investment of political capital in the ACA (however flawed) and the Romney/Ryan pledge to obliterate Medicare and Social Security as we know it is one glaring difference.
No matter how disappointed I may be with Obama, he is clearly preferable to Romney, who offers nothing but a repeat of Voodoo Economics, with its deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and gutting of the social safety net. I, for one, have had it with the Reagan/Romney/Ryan/Rand jungle.
I suspect Romney even lies when he's asleep -- but when I man tries to deceive his id, he usually pays a price.
Kenneth
You wrote: "The easiest political indicator is- how is he doing among the people he actually governed? Are the people of Massachussetts ready for more Mitt?"
Good point, one reinforced by the fact that the supposed Yellow-Dog Democrats of Massachusetts continue to support Republican Scott Brown in large numbers.
True indeed, and as I alluded to above, it is well accepted that neuroses are a well-spring of creativity and achievement.
As for Gerald Ford, he is indeed an interesting case. Given the trauma of his childhood, he certainly had the potential to be screwed-up (that's a clinical term). Of course, there's another lesson to be gleaned from his Presidency, in that at the first opportunity, the people in their infinite wisdom rejected someone so apparently well-adjusted.
I confess I yelled at Old Silverback several times to stop grinning. Frankly, at times his reaction was as inappropriate as Obama's was in his debate. Simply put, there's nothing funny about a discussion of Benghazi.
That said, my evaluation of a debate is not based on optics, but on specifics -- and once again, the other side had none. Generalities are not policies; and as they say, goals without plans are merely wishes.
While Ryan scored points on Benghazi, he embarrassed himself on other foreign policy issues. But that was to be expected. It was also to be expected that he'd lose on Medicare and Social Security -- and he did. Same goes for abortion, tho he waffled mightily trying to align himself with Romney on that wedge issue. Problem was/is Romney has several positions on that issue, while Ryan has only one -- outlaw abortion.
The problem with both debates is that they were not conducted on a level playing field. Both Romney and Ryan "won" by not falling on their faces, while the bar was set unrealistically high for Obama and Biden.
Having remained upright -- check that -- having remained standing well enough to litter the stage and the airwaves with lies, Romney will enter the second debate with the bar set much higher. My expectation? Romney can do no better than he did first time out, and Obama has miles of room for improvement. We shall see.
I can't wait for this to be over.
The reaction to the debates? 'Tis a puzzlement, tho I confess, I found Obama's grimacing and Biden's grinning inappropriate. But that hardly compares to the outright lies coughed-up by the other side -- especially by Romney. To repeat what I said above:
The problem with both debates is that they were not conducted on a level playing field. Both Romney and Ryan "won" by not falling on their faces, while the bar was set unrealistically high for Obama and Biden.
But again, if we're going to fairly judge the debates, let's forget the optics and look at the specifics. Clearly Romney/Ryan are avoiding specifics because they know they'll lose if they do expose their real plans. And what are those plans? Tripling down on supply-side Voodoo Economics -- which means more deregulation and more tax breaks for the wealthy, gutting the social safety net, and ending a woman's right to choose.
By the way, I've been watching CNN's rerun of the debate with the Undecideds plus/minus scrawl. What's clear to me is that these folks are undecided because they haven't been paying attention.
I'm not sure what it says about us, but I'm pretty sure what is says about Romney -- he is amoral, he will do literally anything to become President. That amorality appears to be a lifelong pattern with him when it comes to achieving his career and wealth objectives. And again, that bespeaks a sociopath.
There must be a price to be paid for lying or there is no deterrence, no motivation to stop lying. "It's working, isnit it?" is the attitude I've experienced. "That's all that matters."
Its been going on for well over 20 years.
You certainly raise an interesting question. Frank Bitney, Sarah Palin's legislative director, like other Palin aides raised the same question about her in their books (When asked if she was sane, Bitney replied "Is a sociopath sane"?). The book Blind Allegiance by former Palin aide Frank Bailey covers Palin's mental stability though Palin people portray Bitney and Bailey as "disgruntled" former staffers as one might expect.
I think your accusations of "false equivalency" willfully ignore the obvious equivalencies. I think if people focused more on the points on which the two candidates agree instead of the rhetorical flourishes of disagreement, there might be a better chance to turn things around. I think the best motto I've seen for the election up to this point is this: "Vote Obamney!"
" When one side breaks the social contract, and the other side makes it a virtue of never calling them out on it, the liar always wins. When it beocmes 'uncivil' to call out liars, lying bcomes free."
Exactly. I seem to recall something in a similar vein: "All that is required for evil men to triumph is that good men do nothing."
I'm sure you're aware that "conservatives" are trying to resurrect the infamous Laffer Curve; I presume because they're well aware the public has veeeery short-term memory. While Laffer deserves to be ridiculed as the economic guru behind supply-side Voodoo Economics, the truth is his theory states only that there is an optimum tax rate.
But even if one concedes that revenues increased when the maximum rate of 92% (under Eisenhower) was reduced to 70% (under Kennedy), correlation is not causation. And if one insists on causation, then one must grant that the Bush tax cuts were a cause of drastically decreased revenues.
In short, conservatives can't win this argument, but that certainly doesn't keep them from trying ... and trying .. and trying.
Whether Romney is a pathological narcissist or a sociopath, the result of his election will be the same for ordinary citizens --a disaster.
Sorry, but I don't think you're following your own logic to the proper conclusion. You say if people "focused more on the points on which the two candidates agree". That clearly implies that there are points on which they disagree, and therefore one of those candidates has to be more preferable to you than the other. Or to put it more simply, if one candidate is 99% bad and the other is 100% bad, it is in your interest to vote the 99%er.
Right. We both agree Romney is a serial liar and his election will be a disaster for those of us who are not in the top 1%. Thus we support the President.
The only silver lining possibility if R is unfortunately elected is being the liar he is, he could be lying to the extreme right (Republican mainstream now) about what his Supreme Court picks would be like and about doing any of the stuff he says he will do.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism on any count when it comes to Romney. Furthermore, the Teapartian contingent in the Senate would prevent a moderate SC justice being approved even if Romney appointed one -- which he wouldn't. He's already said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe v Wade. Of course, he's already said the complete opposite, too, as well as everything in between.
Logic is not supporting your argument. While on the surface, your assessment of 99% versus 100% seems logical, it resides in the realm of deficient consideration of specifics and of being overly simplistic. Regardless of the percentage points that may exist in reality, instead of in your fictional presentation, the real issue is whether the areas in which they DISAGREE outweigh the areas in which they AGREE, in order for your assertion that one or the other of them is really ultimately preferable to be accurate.
For instance, both will continue to ship jobs overseas to 3rd-world countries where corporations can pay laborers pennies-on-the-dollar to work in sweatshops without regard for laborers’ welfare or for the environment. While Obama talks a good game about “jobs programs”, he is working behind the scenes on another so-called free trade agreement (CAFTA) to send more jobs out of the country so those Americans who still have jobs can afford to buy cheap crap they don’t really need and, more importantly, so the corporate CEOs of the corporations producing that crap can continue to reap the profits at tax-payer expense. It is that “big money” that sponsors the joke we call a “democratic” election.
Constitutional protections will continue to be eroded under both. While there have been numerous proofs of this over the past 12 years, the recent congressional passage and Obama’s signing into law of the NDAA should be clear enough evidence of that likelihood. WTF???
The continuous empowerment of the “banksters” will continue under both and the past 6 years have been adequate indicators of that likelihood revealing that neither party is working to reduce that empowerment. The main difference in the parties’ approaches is rhetorical with no real effect.
Those are just quick examples of how their agreements outweigh their disagreements. But the most telling evidence is found in the history of the past 12 years, and most tellingly in the past 6 years, not in the 2 pretenders’ rhetorical flourishes describing a fictional future. Why do we not see the other presidential candidates in the so-called “presidential debates” (quite a joke, really)? Why do we not hear about all the issues that represent the crumbling foundation of the societal protections and structure that the Founders created? Every vote for either of these 2 candidates is, in effect, a non-vote that lends itself to the further deterioration of anything good that remains in America. And the truly astonishing thing about this is that it is truly as simple as enough people just refusing to vote for either one of them. Truly astonishing.
You say: "the real issue is whether the areas in which they DISAGREE outweigh the areas in which they AGREE, in order for your assertion that one or the other of them is really ultimately preferable to be accurate"
Sorry, but I have to disagree -- your assertion doesn't stand the test of simple arithmetic, let alone the test of logic. But regardless, as you note, the 99%/100% was hyperbole intended only to illustrate my point and not to reflect the reality of the situation.
And what is that reality? Whatever their supposed similar positions on some issues, Obama and Romney hold vastly different views on the role of government. That includes vast differences on taxes, regulation, environmental issues, stimulus, gay marriage, equal pay for women, student loans, birth control and abortion -- I could go on and on, but my point is made.
I must qualify this by saying no one knows what Romoney's true views are about much of anything -- including him. But in any case, his views don't really matter because he is a prisoner of the wingnut Teapartian lunatic fringe of his Party, and they will hold his feet to the fire if he is elected -- God forbid!
I’ll just say the issues at hand are not a matter of simple arithmetic. Attempting to say they are involves flawed logic. The issues are a matter of American values that are being destroyed under both major parties. There is no math involved unless you consider that in this scenario 2=1 where those values are concerned.
You say, “Whatever their supposed similar positions on some issues, Obama and Romney hold vastly different views on the role of government.”
My first thought is that their similarities are not “supposed”; they are quite obvious. History of actual actions doesn’t support your assertion of “vastly different views on the role of government”. You can believe their rhetoric, or you can believe your own eyes when you look at what is actually done. Obama/Democrat actions over the past 6 years (or more, if we go back to the weakening of Glass-Steagall) do not support your assertion. An old adage comes to mind here: Actions speak louder than words. Obama preached all kinds of differences between him and his predecessor, and when Obama took office, he did virtually nothing to really change any of those major differences. If history is relevant, neither Obama, nor Romney, will make any significant changes, despite their campaign rhetoric.
If Romney somehow sneaks into the White House, the key will be the Democrats in Congress. The same is true if Obama wins. Will congressional Dems suddenly become what they haven’t been? Will they suddenly become “principled” enough to stand against the Tea-Publicans, or will they continue to capitulate? History presents a bleak outlook.
About Romney, you say, “…he is a prisoner of the wingnut Teapartian lunatic fringe of his Party, and they will hold his feet to the fire if he is elected”. Isn’t this what we’ve seen of Obama and the Dems over the past few years? We really need to be asking why the Dems continue to cave to that same “wingnut Teapartian lunatic fringe”. And since we don’t seem to know why they do, we really need to figure out how to eliminate those Dems. And the one thing we do know is that continuing to send the same people back is not the way to eliminate them. There is some irrefutable arithmetic for you.
You can slice it anyway you like, but what you can't deny legitimately is the basic math. In 18 days, one of two men will be elected President. My argument boils down to this: Better the winner is Obama than Romney -- and I suspect you agree with me on that at least.
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/14061-binders-full-of-women-and-two-women-bound
And here's a quote from the article:
"The League of Women Voters allowed third-party candidate John B. Anderson to participate in a presidential debate in 1980, and in the decade that followed, the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, sparred with the League. In 1988, the parties tried to force the League into a contract detailing how the debates would be run. Farah explained: “It talked about who could be in the audience and how the format would be structured, but the League found that kind of lack of transparency and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse to implement it.”
Farah said that early contract was “tame” compared with the binding contract, leaked to Time magazine this week, that governed the so-called town hall, moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley. The 21-page “Memorandum of Understanding” includes a reference to their standards for candidate eligibility to participate. The CPD requires that a candidate have support from “at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations.” This is a classic Catch-22. In order to debate, you must have broad support. In order to earn public support, candidates without huge campaign war chests need the access that the televised debates offer. So the Democrats and Republicans control the debates, and limit the public’s access to alternative views."
Like I said, areas of agreement between the two parties outweigh, in terms of importance, those on which they rhetorically disagree. When I cast my vote for Rocky Anderson on my absentee ballot, it will carry more value than any votes cast for either major-party candidate. And in my particular RED state, it will count more than any votes cast for Obama, all of which will be completely cancelled out by the antiquated and democratically antithetical electoral system. This whole thing is more of scam than I have even known up to this point and we're being screwed worse each voting cycle.
I said, "What I do know is this: regardless of which one wins, Americans lose."
Heh, HELL! We've already lost.
We will simply have to agree to disagree, save that I agree the debates have been manipulated and mangled to the point they are no longer useful, other than as gigantic infomericials.
I expected nothing else. Your last comment about the debates' value is indicative of the entire exercise we call an election. It wasn't always like this, but it is now. Playing by THEIR rules is a game for fools.