Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them.

The credibility of liberal attacks on SH against Mitt Romney does not merit a full review of all allegations. However, on the off-chance that you were more insightful than your liberal/progressive peers I randomly sampled sampled your listing; we can discuss my algorithm for choosing,if you like,but I don't think the choices I took seem different from the type of material that remained. These are my findings:

Charge 18.1: "Romney promised in a speech [In the third week in May] 'I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.'" The proof of the alleged lie is a reference to unidentified, allegedly bi-partisan, experts who have opined that Romney's policies will increase the defecit. My response: Whoop-de-frikkin doo. I have little doubt that Harry Reid will accept this reference as conclusive; most of America, however, has higher standards than Harry Reid does - including Harry Reid, when he isn't talking about Romney - and I would like to see a presentation of these experts' opinions before I started tossing around words like "mendacity". I have little doubt that a majority of economists would disagree with Romney's projections; you've got some heavy lifting, though, to show their disagreement rises to a level of disdain to justify the terminology you use.

Charge 18.10: "When you add up his policies the president has increased the deficit by five trillion dollars." The proof of the alleged lie is the statement "It's not Obama's policies that are driving up the deficit." Now the statement doesn't quit there, it contains a link that leads you to a recitation of the usual Democratic arguments that the deficit is attributable to Bush's tax cuts. To the thread author, those tax cuts are not Obama's; Bush passed them and BHO at various times and in varying degrees sought to end them. The position is logical, but it's not the only way to look at things. When the progressives and liberals cite history as to whether the Dems or the Reps are the ones responsible for deficits, do they go through a program analysis of which party is responsible for which spending? Not that I've seen. To whichever party the POTUS belongs, responsibility is assigned for deficits incurred in his term. Not that the reference need be entirely historical, when the Dems currently talk about Barack the deficit fighter, do they ever reference the additional hundreds of millions that weren't spent because of Republican obstinance in resisting his spending plans? IMHO this is not a dialogue in which one should be using the word "mendacity". President Obama came into office four years ago with majorities in both houses that no Republican since WW2 could realistically dream about and with a seeming groundswell of public support - that he readily took title to - that should have enabled him to rule almost monarchically. If you want to tell me that I'm being mendacious for assigning responsibility to him for the overwhelming share of policies that survived his first two years, I can't stop you from doing so. However, don't think it has escaped my notice that most Americans are not anywhere near so willing to provide carte blanche to you and yours, including BHO, and that that fact is making you increasingly nervous.

Charge 18.11: "Romney claimed that more of the economy is being 'absorbed ... into government.'" The proof cites us to a NYT article that alleges that the Obama administration has reversed a 40 year trend by having the public sector decline 3% in its spending in the first three years of the administration. Okay, fine, that's a good factoid for you as you've presented it, but now tell me exactly what it was Romney said. Because if he said something along the lines of 'the trend of the past 40 years has been to increase the role of government in the economy and the Obama administration is now proposing a radical expansion of the government's role in another 10% of the economy' he'd be right on point. You may have a point here, but then again, you may be dead wrong. What Romney quote is being referenced?

Charge 21.1: " ... Romney argued " ... with America in crisis ... [President Obama] hasn't put forth a plan to get us working again ... ." The quote produced here brings us back to the plan defeated by the Republicans, after they had recaptured Congress and Obama had lost his House majority, arguably for doing exactly what he was now asking Republicans to do. That plan was defeated because the House Republicans said it was a "spending plan", not a "jobs plan". You can buy into that or not buy into that as you see fit, and I take it as legitimate political give-and-take; what I find appalling is that many Democrats are unwilling merely to abide Republican opposition, but feel compelled to call their opponents liars for taking a position contrary to theirs. Romney is entitled to say that Obama has not come back with a plan that will get people working. If you think his statement disingenuously implied that Obama has done nothing at all, you're entitled to do so, but your failure to fully explain your argument IMHO makes you no better in such regard than Romney. Incidentally, my own finding in the area, at least initially, would be that no one was being mendacious, it was typical political rhetoric of putting one's own position in the best light and leaving one's opponent to fend for himself.

Charge 21.10: "If I'm president I'm going to put us on track to get a balanced budget." I'm tiring of this exercise, so I'll be brief here. Maybe the thread author thinks it productive to use terms like "lies" and "mendacity" w/ regard to this type of statement. I don't.

Charge 21.11: "In a campaign ad, Romney claims. in reference to a federal loan guarantee Solyndra received, 'The IG said contracts were steered to friends and family.'" The link provided in the substantiating statement did not work on my desktop, but I traced it down. This fact is that the IG did not make a finding of the nature Romney alleged. The IG said that it was investigating leads it had received in the area; whether the promotionn of an investigation to a finding is a "misstatement" or a "lie" is something I could argue. But I won't. You're one for five.

Charge 21.12: "In St. Louis Romney said the Recovery Act left us with record unemployment." The defense to calling that statement a lie makes to the arguable contention that "unemployment is lower now than when Obama took office" and alludes to the fact that unemployment was higher in Reagan's first term. Let me say merely that unemployment in CY 2011 hit a 25 year high. That to me decides the arguement until and unless you show me that the Romney statement contained specifics that are not encompassed by that fact.

Charge 28.1: "Romney told reporters this afternoon, 'The President has also raised taxes on the middle class, so said the Supreme Court.'" You mind giving me a little help here? These are a bunch of semantical tricks that were being played after the USSC ruling affirming the Constitutionality of ObamaCare. The defense of the accusation of "lie", such as it is, seems to be that Mitt Romney also raised taxes on the middle class. If that is it, so what? The middle class that Mitt Romney raised taxes on was the Massachusetts middle class. It is inarguable that they received a substantial benefit of hundreds of millions of federal dollars yearly for having that done to them. It has virtually nothing to do with ObamaCare.

Charge 28.10: "On health care Romney said 'We have to make sure people with pre-existing conditions don't have to be denied care.'" The "proof" starts by saying "At a minimum that's wildly misleading." What is wildly misleading? Where did the "quote" in question come from? The link provided ion the proof statement takes the reader to a story in a blog called "The Hill" and that story leaves no doubt whatsoever that Romney was referring to the idea that Romney was commenting on the issue of people who were transferring insurance coverage should not lose coverage, not the idea that children should not be barred from getting coverage because of pre-existing conditions. If you want to say that a quote is a lie, particularly a mendacious lie, you should be a little better in providing access to the quote you contend represents the commission of the cited offense.

Charge 28.11: This item merely repeats the ongoing debate between ridiculous mossheads such as myself who think the CBO projections on Obama care are evidence of the fact that drug laws are not being effectively enforced in Washington DC and people like, apparently, you who think the estimates are as solid as the gold standard. Well, I started working in NYS government in the late '60s and a perennial chuckle at that time was how NYS in the First Quarter of FFY 1965-66 consumed the entire nationwide projection for Medicaid for that FY that the predecessor of the CBO has made. They've gotten better, but the cost projections for the replacement of the federal AABD program with SSI were also laughably low. I'll give you this one though, I can't expect the country to formulate policy based solely on my unfortunate experiences with the CBO, but,if you're interested in making a side wager on whether their estimates are over or under actual costs, look no farther than here.

Okay, I gave you two out of ten (21:11 and 28:11). I found you wrong on five where I found the semantics in my favor or the facts you'd have to find sufficiently unlikely as to leave little doubt, in my mind, at least, that the charge was unprovable (18.10, 21.1, 21.10, 21.12, and 28.1), and three where I thought the charge was currently unproven but might be provable upon a showing of further/different facts. Since the two that I give to you don't change my mind one iota about what the result of the election should be, I recommend to my fellow conservatives that they continue on to other threads in SH, the authors opinions notwithstanding, there's little here they'd find troubling - though he is right in that you'd likely find much to make you angry.

My answers stand on their own; I'm perfectly comfortable letting SHs draw their own conclusions as to who is 'in the tank" particularly since you seem to completely reject the idea that the three comments I suggested the author supplement needed any supplementation.

As for your three additional items, the "If we're talking about the economy ..." ad's basic message was that the economy hasn't been fixed; if you want to dispute that contention, feel free to shout your message from the bottom of the tank; as to the source of the quote being misidentified, the press release accompanying the release of the ad clearly identified John McCain in 2008 as the source of the quote, to the degree that is relevant.

The "you didn't build that quote" is part of a paragraph that reads: "If you were successful somebody along the line gave you help. ... Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The internet didn't get built on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all those companies could make money on the Internet." You and those of your ilk bitch and moan about Obama's words being taken out of context and twisted. Horsehockey. Yes, some Republicans are so stupid that they can't simply revel in the stupidity of what was said, but that doesn't detract from the fact that BHO said what he did. "If you got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." That's what he said, and, in a very real sense, that's what he meant. Did he mean more than that? Perhaps. And perhaps not. But throwing around words like "lies" to cover your own misstatements? When Romney got nailed for saying "I like being able to fire people ...", did he run around screaming "Liar"? No, he said he was being taken out of context, and, to the radically reduced audiences who continued to listen, he clearly showed that was the case. What Obama said was reason enough not to vote for him for a person like me. The difference between the Obama campaign's reaction to a bad quote and the Romney campaign's to a worse one, is all the extra impetus I would ever need to vote for Romney. The fact that it likely has no effect on you adds to my conviction as to who, between the two of us, is "in the tank".

As for your last comment, the "work-to-welfare" requirement, I worked for more than 30 years in a State Agency administering the AFDC and the Work Programs associated with that program, primarily the WIN program. I doubt you'd get the truth out of them now, but there isn't a Legal Services lawyer around who was experienced in litigating the AFDC program who didn't recognize that letter when it first came out for exactly what it was intended to be - an invitation to States to waive the PRWORA Work Rules; calling the Obama letter an invitation was not a lie, the lie was calling those who correctly identified it "liars".

As I said, some impressive work. Sorry you chose to ignore my complements, even though I did limit them some.

I'm sure that you in your own quite and less partisan moments know full well that an accompanying press release that virtually no one will see does not excuse what amounts to a lying misattribution. If Mr. McCain said it, why not use a clip of him or attributed text of him saying it? The only reason is to deliberately imply that Mr. Obama said it in regards his own campaign--hence, a deliberate lie.

On "You didn't build that": you give the whole quote in context, yet choose to deliberately pretend to make the same error in interpretation that allowed Republicans to make a big deal about it--that is, they deliberately choose to pretend to think he said the non-contextual phrase by itself; hence making using it as if he did that a lie.

As for the work rules--you clearly have relevant experience and knowledge that I respect; yet other experts vehemently disagree with you. Since I am NOT experienced in this area, ll I can do is point to one of them:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012...

Key quote:

"It’s simply not true that the administration’s policy will allow states to “just send you your welfare check.” Under the policy, states must meet a whole new set of federal requirements in order to obtain and keep a waiver. Plus, states have an incentive to get people off welfare and into jobs, since that would free TANF funds for other services for low-income families"

However:

"Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, told us the Obama administration should not have unilaterally changed the work-requirement rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”"

"... I did limit them some." You're quite droll.

Not very persuasive - reminding me of the Obama camp's use of this type of yellow journalism is not the type of thing that convinces me (or, I hope, anyone else) - of the merits of the Obama victory, but quite droll. But, then again, maybe that wasn't your purpose - although that does give rise to the question of just what exactly your purpose was.

If your purpose was to through salt in wounds, you're welcome to try, but I think you're spinning your wheels. I didn't think Obama was going to lose - a fact I reiterated on SH several times, although I did mention as of about August, I was no longer giving odds that he would win - so I don't think I have wounds; I'm much more irritated by the horde of SHs who are telling me I was celebrating Romney's victory too early. If you really want a discussion on the points to which you refer, 'm afrfaid I'm a bit of a disappointment. As to your first item, you're going to have to give me a bit more than you have, since I don't remember what topic you think we were discussing when I said a press release excused what you call a "lying misattribution".

As to your second item, I think you continue to misperceive the different interpretations Rep/cons and Dem/libs put on the "you didn't build that quote. Rep/cons look at Bill Gates and say that in 1980 there were all sorts of sharks plying the waters trying to profit from what they thought would be the opportunity for billions in what they expected would be a forthcoming boom in computer applications; he was one of the sharks that one and is justifiably rewarded for his success. Dem/libs say that gates was just another step forward in a progression running from before Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison, and, accordingly, it's entirely appropriate for society to enforce its expectation that he should be sharing the wealth. If you agree - and it's entirely possible you don't - I don't see how Republicans are charged w/ grievously mischaracterizing their part of the argument as to what BHO said. In any event, I haven't "deliberately pretended" anything.

As for the Work Rules, why argue? The election required us to make a decision based on projections; that decision point has passed. Let's see what happens for a year. Ditto for Obamacare, not that you mentioned it.

#1- “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident,” Obama wrote in the letter presented to Karzai by US ambassador Ryan Crocker. “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.” For burning some ratty old Quran's which had been marked in ( a violation of Sharia law and had pages missing (another violation of Sharia law).

Here's a list of six others.
1. Apology to France and Europe ("America Has Shown Arrogance"). Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.

2. Apology to the Muslim World ("We Have Not Been Perfect"). President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas ("At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms"). President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders ("Some Restoration of America's Standing in the World"). News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.

5. Apology for the War on Terror ("We Went off Course"). President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France ("Sacrificing Your Values"). Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.

#2 Romney lied about ever facing loss of job or layoff. Prove that false, I dare ya.
Second part of #2 is how, Romney argued in a debate, “[W]hat unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you have massive overhead, with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs, very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.”

This is an easy one. The Bureaucracy consumes 70 cents of ever dollar allocated to Poverty Programs. That means the people who actually need the help only see 30 cents of each dollar allocated to them. While PRIVATE charities are far more efficient in dealing with similar programs able to deliver assistance at just 20 cents on the dollar, there by 80 cents of each dollar for PRIVATE charity programs goes to the person in poverty.

There, I have shown you the facts in just 2 of your pack of lies. I could continue, but this poll is full of so much BS it isn't worth my time to dispel every one of them. The Liberals are lucky to Sheeple like you to buy all their outright lies and keep voting for the same ol, same ol socialistic crap.