Because of what I am about to write regarding President Obama, I must begin this post by stating this is my opinion alone and is not intended to reflect the opinion of my fellow MRC writers, Mitt Romney, or the Romney campaign.
I’m not entirely sure why pundits, Romney surrogates, and other “political experts” are so reticent to call out Barack Obama for what he is: A liar. Five days ago I wrote this piece outlining four inherent advantages that Mr. Obama has over Mitt Romney. As President of the United States, prestige alone allows Mr. Obama to lie with impunity as the mainstream media covers for him. Many Americans trust their president implicitly and would never disbelieve him because of their respect for the office of president. Frankly, I strongly believe President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other senior administration officials are actively involved in a cover-up to prevent disclosure of solid intel they had before the consulate attack in Libya, indicating it was pre-planned and was terrorism.
Yesterday morning, Eric Fehrnstrom was outlining how Barack Obama had been deceptive and did so by providing excellent examples. When asked directly by the FOX anchor if he was calling Obama “a liar” he basically backed down and said “no.” What? Obama is not just dancing around the truth; he is outright lying and he is getting away with it! Before you get after me for writing this, I must say that I do think Governor Romney has definite plans to take care of Obama’s nasty habit of prevaricating.
Yesterday, Karl Rove published his weekly opinion piece entitled, “Obama’s Biggest Opponent Is the Truth.”
When George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney in a Sept. 14 “Good Morning America” interview what he’s learned about President Obama as a debater, the former Massachusetts governor replied, “I think he’s going to say a lot of things that aren’t accurate.”
If Mr. Obama’s debate performance mirrors his campaign, Mr. Romney’s prediction will be dead on. To get a sense of how comprehensive the president’s assault on the truth has been, consider some of his false claims in recent speeches and ads.
One Obama spot says, “To pay for huge, new tax breaks for millionaires like him, Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class: $2,000 for a family with children.”
That claim has been thoroughly discredited, including by PolitiFact Virginia and editorials in this newspaper. […]
Another ad says, “As a corporate raider, [Mr. Romney] shipped jobs to China and Mexico.” In response, the Washington Post editorialized, “On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue.” As recently as Sept. 17, Mr. Obama claimed in Ohio that Mr. Romney’s “experience has been owning companies that were called ‘pioneers’ in the business of outsourcing jobs to countries like China.” But that claim, too, is a fabrication.
Candidates always have disagreements, arguing over the meaning of events or evidence. But Mr. Obama has taken ordinary political differences beyond anything we’ve seen. Every day, it seems, he attempts to disqualify his opponent through deliberate and undeniable falsehoods.
[VL: I call “falsehoods” ——> “lies”]
This is only one side of a two-sided coin. The president can’t tell the truth about his own record either.
For example, Mr. Obama said at a Univision Town Hall on Sept. 20 that his biggest failure “is we haven’t gotten comprehensive immigration reform done.” The president then did what is second nature to him: He pinned the blame on Republicans. The problem with this excuse is that the Democrats controlled Congress by huge margins in the first two years of his presidency—and Mr. Obama never introduced an immigration bill or even provided the framework for one.
In the same interview, Mr. Obama claimed that his Justice Department’s botched “Fast and Furious” gunrunning program was “begun under the previous administration.” This time it was ABC’s Jake Tapper correcting the record, pointing out, “it was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.”
The most troubling recent example of Mr. Obama’s serial dishonesty is his administration’s effort to deny that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist assault, as if the truth would somehow tarnish Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy credentials.
Voters expect politicians to stretch the truth. But when the offender is as persistent with mistruths, half-truths and no-truths as Mr. Obama is, voters expect the other candidate to blow the whistle. They want their leaders to show toughness and be competitive. Which brings us back to the coming Oct. 3 debate, to be followed by two others on Oct. 16 and 22.
During these widely watched events, Mr. Romney must call out the president. That is not so easy: Mr. Romney can’t call Mr. Obama a liar; that’s too harsh a word that would backfire. Mr. Romney must instead set the record straight in a presidential tone—firm, respectful, but not deferential. And a dash of humor is worth its weight in gold.
While Mr. Romney must point out the president’s misrepresentations, he can’t take on the role of fact-checker-in-chief. He should deal comprehensively with several of Mr. Obama’s untruths and, having done so, dismiss the rest as more of the same.
By carefully calling into question the president’s veracity, Mr. Romney will have the opportunity to provide context: Mr. Obama doesn’t shoot straight because he can’t defend his record and has no agenda for the future except the status quo, stay the course.
What exactly about the past four years do Americans like? And why would they want four more years like them? Mr. Obama knows how most Americans would answer these questions, which is why he is being so fast and loose with the truth. Mr. Romney’s job is to shine a light on this for voters.
American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”
Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist — Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families