Huckabee and Romney's lying problem.
If conservatives are so confident, why lie?
Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. Yet the GOP hammered him for his supposed "truth problem." The irony, of course, is that countless conservatives lied to accuse Gore of lying.
Previously I pointed out Romney's fibbing about who Jesus Christ is to the Mormons. Mormons believe that Jesus is a
son of a
god... not the
Son of God as orthodox Christians traditionally believe.
As a liberal Christian, I respect Mormons and defend their right to believe whatever they want about Jesus Christ. However, I expect them to be honest and open about their beliefs.
But Romney's "truth problem" seems to go beyond his faith.
Romney told that nation he saw his dad march with Martin Luther King.
Mitt Romney forced to backpedal over Martin Luther King claim Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney
Politicians hate the word lie. When caught dissembling, they will concede that they misspoke, or misremembered, or even that they were economical with the truth.
Now the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has added another delicious entry to the lexicon of political euphemisms for the blatant fib.
When he said that as a boy he "saw" his father march with the civil rights leader Martin Luther King – a claim debunked yesterday – Mr Romney now says he used the word "saw" in a "figurative sense".
Continuing his clarification, Mr Romney said: "If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes 'being aware of' in the sense I've described. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great [civil rights] effort."
OK, this is very Clintonesque of Romney, "That depends on the definition of what "saw" was.
To further Romney's "truth problem" is that George Romney never marched with MLK, no mater how you torture the English language.
Huckabee also clearly has a "truth problem" in that there is no way
he never noticed the cross in his commercial. I've done some video professionally -- fast and cheap.
Even at my amateurish level, there is absolutely no way -- not possible at all
-- that a big, prominent floating cross in a frame would be missed in one of my videos.
In the very remote chance
that it was missed in the original framing of the scene, it would have been noticed during the shoot. In the extremely unlikely
case that it was missed in the shoot, it would have been noticed and pointed out during editing where every frame is reviewed again and again and again.
In very very, highly, extremely improbable
chance that the gigantic cross was missed in the editing, it would have been noticed in the focus group and executive pre-screening of the video.
In other words: Hucakbee is lying.
Not good for a minister running as a Christian.
Romney fails the honest test about his religion.
Romney fibs about what Mormons believe about Jesus Christ.
First let me be clear: I have no problem with Mitt Romney's Mormonism.
I'd happily vote for a Mormon if I thought they'd make a great president. (Clearly, this is not Mitt Romney.) I'd say the same for any religion or lack of it. I wish all Americans would be like me and respect the US Constitution which prohibits a religious test for office.
However, I expect the candidate to be truthful if they chose to talk about their faith. Romney was not, yesterday:
"There is one fundamental question which I'm often asked: What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.
This is deceptive.
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is a
son of a
The church teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "one God" in the sense that they are one "in purpose", but does not accept the Nicene Creed's definition of Trinity, that the three are "consubstantial". Rather, the church teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings, both with glorified, perfect bodies of flesh and bone, while the Holy Ghost is a distinct being with only a "spirit body". God the Father is understood to be the literal father of all the spirits who inhabit this earth and the father of Jesus' spirit body and his physical body.
Romney's believes that "god" is one god among many who live on many planets. Jesus is his son but one among billions.
This is very different than the exclusive claims about God and Jesus Christ in orthodox Christianity.
As a liberal Christian I respect people who disagree with me on issues of faith. God bless them too, I say.
However, I don't respect them if they fib and deceive about what they believe.
Constitutional niceties in perilous times like these.
Using the logic of conservatives, can we afford the luxury of a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Lord help us. It's happened again:
9 Dead in Nebraska Mall Shooting
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A man opened fire with a rifle at a busy department store Wednesday, killing eight people in an attack that made holiday shoppers run screaming through a mall and barricade themselves in dressing rooms.
The young shooter, who left a note predicting, "Now I'll be famous," wounded five others, two critically, then took his own life.
Witnesses said the gunman sprayed fired down on shoppers from a third-floor balcony of the Von Maur store using what police said was an SKS assault rifle they found at the scene.
The conservatives have scolded us liberals that strict interpretation of the constitution is simply not practical in these perilous times.
Why does that apply to Habeas Corpus and privacy rights but not to the right to bear arms?
I've never argued that the Second Amendment should be abolished -- just that it should apply to well-regulated militias, as it states.
If conservatives are intellectually consistent, they should support me in this. They want to restriction the constitution because 3,000 people died on 9/11/01. Since then, approximately 180,000 people have died in gun violence.
It's only logical: if we are going to soften any
constitutional protection in these perilous times, it should be the Second Amendment. Any non-hypocritical conservatives want to join me?
Save this article!
Bush & the Right Wing Media will pretend like this report never happened.
Our own US intelligence says Bush has been lying about Iran when he claims their nuke program is reason to go to war.
Bush has been making this claim, even though the report is months old.
Soon everybody will forget about this report.
The very same thing happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.
CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S.,
Containment Was Working
by Jason Leopold
CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.
But immediately after the terrorist attacks on 9-11, which the Bush administration has said Iraq is partially responsible for, the President and his advisers were already making a case for war against Iraq without so much as providing a shred of evidence to back up their allegations that Iraq and its former President, Saddam Hussein, helped al-Qaida hijackers plan the catastrophe.
This report should have totally changed the debate in America about the need to invade Iraq since our own intelligence agencies
had determined Iraq was not a threat. At the time, I remember debating with my conservative friends and they just claimed that the CIA is incompetent. "Everybody knows Iraq has WMDs. The CIA is wrong
." they claimed then.
Now, of course, those same goofballs claim that we invaded Iraq because the CIA had faulty intelligence claiming Iraq was an imminent threat! It's not their fault! This is a surreal disconnect from reality.
It's happening again.
Our intelligence agencies are reporting that Iran doesn't have WMDs
and won't anytime in the near future.
Once, again Bush is contradicting his own intelligence sources
. We can expect that -- after a guaranteed disastrous bombing of Iraq -- he will blame the CIA for faulty intelligence.
So, save this report.U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003
And, this time, we must force the conservatives to change the debate
The new debate is, "You lied to start a war in Iraq. Stop lying to start a war with Iran."