Just so we're clear, the "troubles with the truth" in the headline aren't necessarily lies. There can be more subtle forms of obfuscation, denialism, and even inadvertent honesty.
Or just plain old refusing to check facts that are just too convenient to not use. I'm referring here to Marco Rubio, who claimed Obama refused to comment on the fraudulent election in Iran 2009 that ignited street protests in Tehran. Obama did comment. Rubio is just flat out wrong. My guess is he wasn't lying, but just repeating a talking point that was so good, it was best to not fact check it. Rubio is hardly the first. The Washington Post's fact checker has Rubio's statement and tracked the statements Obama made at the time, though he also did that thing that drives me nuts about fact-checking columns and sites, some of them anyway. They have to do their own twisting to find some way a false statement isn't completely false, or a true statement isn't completely true. In this case, Glenn Kessler gave Rubio just three Pinocchios instead of four (and why do fact checkers need the cutesy rating systems?) because Obama could have been stronger sooner, and Rubio would have had a point if he'd said something else. Fact checkers keep doing this. "The president didn't say that but looking only at part of what he said, the misquoting would have been close to what he was accused of saying, and the person making it up would have been close if he had said X instead of what he actually said, so it's therefore not completely false." Why is this so hard for not just Kessler, but other fact checkers too? Rubio said Obama said X. Obama didn't say X, so Rubio's statement is false. Rubio's staff tried to support their boss's claim by referring to something Obama said that was related to the topic but not what they claimed he said. They should get extra cutesy icons for bogusity.
Bobby Jindal actually got other Louisiana Republicans upset with him for his own act of bogusity. In a desperate attempt to keep his no-tax pledge while plugging massive budget holes, Jindal wants to eliminate $526 million in tax rebates that go to business. He didn't consult with anyone in Louisiana, but with Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). Jindal sought ATR's blessing first, and they decided that ending a tax rebate isn't a tax increase, much to the consternation of Louisiana business and Republicans. In pure policy terms, ending the rebate is probably a smart move, though I suppose being a liberal, I would think that ending a special tax break for some businesses when there's a budget shortfall is smart. However, the issue here is Jindal got some anti-tax fanatic in DC to approve his policy before asking anyone actually in his state, and his state's Republicans and businesses are ticked both at losing a rebate, and at losing it because some guy in DC makes up the rules by no discernible rationale. ATR decided to call ending the tax rebate a spending cut rather than a tax increase, which I intend to point out next time I'm arguing for ending a tax expenditure.
Of course, if that were a Democrat who wanted to end a tax expenditure rather than Norquist's presidentially ambitious buddy, there no doubt would be screaming about another "Democrat" tax increase. To be fair though, a bunch of conservatives in Louisiana aren't buying the definitions even from Jindal. Losing your own goodies from government will have that effect I guess.
Lindsey Graham says Al Gore is to blame for the inability of Republicans to address climate change. Why can't Republicans accept climate change and come up with a policy? "But the problem is Al Gore's turned this thing into religion." Oddly enough, though Graham is indulging in utter nonsense, he is accidentally telling a sort of truth. Republicans can't accept that climate change is real because a Democrat they hate has been prominent on the issue. Call it childish or tribalistic, but Graham is telling us where they are: Republicans can't accept it because that would mean agreeing with environmentalists. Whatever the ideological enemy believes must, by definition, be wrong.
It's ironic that Graham et al accuse Gore and environmentalists of making a religion of global warming when global warming realists are following the evidence, while deniers are holding tight to their beliefs without proof, or in this case despite proof. Yes, somebody is making a religion out of it, eh, Senator?
Ted Cruz would have us believe his musical tastes changed almost literally overnight. Cruz said he switched from classic rock to country because country responded better to 911. Just by coincidence, country is the preferred genre for the people Cruz is playing to in order to get elected. "I had an emotional reaction that said, 'these are my people.' So ever since 2001 I listen to country music." Right, the guy who didn't even want students from the "lesser ivies" joining his study group at Harvard is plain down home folks. This isn't to say he's lying because who knows what music he likes now or what he used to listen to. Or if someone does know him well enough to know he's lying, it's that person's word against Cruz, so we'll never know for sure. It can be said for sure that claiming musical taste changes on a dime is down low on the plausibility scale, and claiming that it just happened to change in the most politically convenient way pushes it down even further.
TPM posted the video of the interview, and what's rather scary is how the panelists, supposedly journalists trained to be skeptical, just nod in agreement. Not one "are you frikkin' kidding me?!" expression to be seen. Just nodding heads, as if these Beltway and NYC denizens had the same reaction. Sure, now here's a radio, show us where the country stations are.
Twitter users, remember the hashtag #ThisGuyWantsToBePresident
cross-posted at MN Progressive Project