Is Romney a Habitual Liar? Or Is He Instead Something Even More Dangerous: God-Awful Stupid? [Updated]
At his press conference, Romney accused Obama of “having that embassy reiterate a statement effectively apologizing for the right of free speech.” Romney claimed that the embassy had said, in his paraphrase, “We stand by our comments that suggest that there’s something wrong with the right of free speech.” This, too, was a Romney lie. The embassy had declared five times in writing that free speech was a universal right.
What made Romney’s statement and press conference disturbing, however, was his repeated use of the words sympathize and apology to conflate three issues the Cairo embassy had carefully separated: bigotry, free speech, and violence. The embassy had stipulated that expressions of bigotry, while wrong, were protected by freedom of speech and didn’t warrant retaliatory violence. Romney, by accusing the embassy of “sympathizing with those who had breached” the compound, equated moral criticism of the Mohammed movie with support for violence. In so doing, Romney embraced the illiberal Islamist mindset that led to the embassy invasion: To declare a movie offensive is to authorize its suppression.
“The Embassy of the United States issued what appeared to be an apology for American principles,” Romney asserted at the press conference. “It’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. … An apology for America’s values is never the right course.” Lest anyone miss his buzzwords, Romney called the embassy’s comments “a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values.”
What, exactly, does Romney mean by “American values”? The embassy never apologized for free speech or diplomatic sovereignty. The only American offense it criticized was the movie’s “bigotry” and “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Does Romney regard this criticism as an “apology for American values”? Is bigotry an American value? Is it weak or un-American to repudiate slurs against Muslims?
I don’t know where you were born, Mr. Romney (just kidding!), but where I come from, there’s nothing more American than recognizing the idiocy of a man’s views and, at the same time, his right to express them. If you can’t tell the difference between those two things, the main threat to our values right now isn’t President Obama, the Egyptians, the Libyans, or our diplomats in Cairo. It’s you.
— William Saletan, Slate, today
The political punditry and news media is finally catching on that Romney’s bizarre modus operandi of habitually mischaracterizing the meanings of basic statements of others (mainly, of course, of Obama) pose the question: Is Romney a habitual liar, or is he instead so dumbfoundingly stupid that he regularly misunderstands even completely clear statements and the definitions of common English-language words, and that he habitually conflates separate concepts and therefore misinterprets even the clearest of statements or comments?
I’ve hoped for a long time that the Obama campaign would pretend to take Romney at his word: Rather than suggest that Romney’s a habitual liar; just point out that, taking him at his word, he’s profoundly, dangerously stupid.
I mean … good grace.
I read somewhere last night—I can’t remember where—that members of Romney’s campaign team told reporters that he was genuinely outraged on Tuesday night by the Cairo embassy’s criticism of “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and that it was phrase “hurt the religious feelings” that really set him off.
This focus by Romney on a single word or short phrase, removed from its context and redefined—this treatment by Romney of serious issues as cutesy word play—has been a real hallmark of Romney’s campaign throughout. Hopefully, Obama and the news media will now point out truly dangerous it would be to have a president who either can’t understand and accurately interpret basic words, statements and concepts. Leave it up to Romney to protest that, no, he’s not really that dumb; he’s just playing games about the most serious of matters, presuming that a majority of voters won’t notice.
The most important aspect of what has transpired in the last two days is that now a majority of voters are likely to notice.
I’m pretty sure that the game’s over, and that Romney lost.
—–
UPDATE: Just to clarify, I want to repost here a comment I made in the Comments thread in response to reader PJR about whether Romney is a liar or instead just stupid. I wrote:
Romney’s a liar, PJR. A casual, habitual liar. That’s his modus operandi; it’s what he thinks gets him the love of the Tea Party folks—his bald willingness to regularly lie as a matter of campaign strategy.
My point, though, is to encourage Obama and the media to decide to take Romney at his word—that he’s not lying; he’s just stating things as he understands them. Which, if so, is a HUGE problem. Even George Bush wasn’t as jaw-droppingly stupid and routinely confused about the meaning of words and statements as Romney either is or feigns.
The bottom line, I think, is that Romney is a liar and is also too stupid to recognize that eventually people were going to figure that out.
It seems odd to me that a Mormon would not appreciate the American value of respecting religious variety and the relationship of tolerance to speech.
It is all very odd and foreboding.
Willam Saletin: “What, exactly, does Romney mean by “American values”? The embassy never apologized for free speech or diplomatic sovereignty. The only American offense it criticized was the movie’s “bigotry” and “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Does Romney regard this criticism as an “apology for American values”?”
Romney plays to the choir. And his choir does believe that hurting the religious feelings of Muslims is an American value. The clash of values here is between Muslim Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism. The followers of both hold strong beliefs, hate the others, and are more than willing to use violence against the other. In this clash, hurt feelings are chickenfeed.
Saletin: “Is bigotry an American value?”
Neither group of Fundamentalists regard themselves as bigots, only the other side.
Saletin: “Is it weak or un-American to repudiate slurs against Muslims?”
In the Fundamentalist world view, yes, it is. “If you are not for us, you are against us.” To repudiate the offensive speech of “our side” is to give comfort to the enemy. BTW, is “slur” appropriate here? Fundamentalist Muslims take offense at any imagined slight of Mohammed, and regard it as blasphemy. They believe in theocracy, not free speech. American Fundamentalist Christians do believe in free speech, even if they do not like it much.
Romney is playing to Christian Fundamentalists, just as Bush II did with his talk about a “crusade”.
Economists don’t know how to measure the true rate of economic growth, because they can’t model the consumer’s perspective on technological advancement. Alex Gheg has released a new framework that can solve this problem. The hidden thoughts and feelings of people can be indirectly measured using the very accurate internal body clock, that we all have. Pleasure contracts time in the human mind, and we can see how this changes our daily circadian rhythms. See some facts and be amazed. Quantity, quality, variety and convenience in one equation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6tFLGpcOpE
Beverly
I wouldn’t count on it. Cheney used to lie aggressively to people’s faces. they knew he was lying. they loved it.
oh, oh, lie to me again, you are so manly when you lie like that.
I lean towards liar or, more accurately, a lack of concern regarding truth. I’ve also been wondering whether Romney decided months ago that he has no chance to win unless something happens that is dramatically bad for Obama, like another economic crash. In that case Romney’s actions and words aren’t very important to the outcome, so he might as well allow other (post-election) personal considerations determine his behavior. Those other considerations might include protecting the privacy of his financial records and demonstrating loyalty and commitment to the beliefs, interests and goals of his friends, colleagues, and backers.
IF Romney is going down in flames, look for attention to shift next month to whether Obama might have coattails. Obama has focused on the ground game for the election, which if successful helps Dem candidates in general. Coattails may be critical for 2013 for whoever wins. For some good academic observations, see http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/243813-coattails-and-common-sense
Romney’s a liar, PJR. A casual, habitual liar. That’s his modus operandi; it’s what he thinks gets him the love of the Tea Party folks—his bald willingness to regularly lie as a matter of campaign strategy.
My point, though, is to encourage Obama and the media to decide to take Romney at his word—that he’s not lying; he’s just stating things as he understands them. Which, if so, is a HUGE problem. Even George Bush wasn’t as jaw-droppingly stupid and routinely confused about the meaning of words and statements as Romney either is or feigns.
Republicans lie all the time.
Brad DeLong has been saying it for years.
They found their lies on false equivalenece:
Sen Kyle Az said the US was like a rape victim (wrong US is a nation) apologizing (lie, to support false equivalence) to the rapist (misguided rioter are like rapists a criminal thing, but still not equivalent in terms of nations).
Then there is the false dilemma: Rethugs will save medicare, but only for the top 1% who would rather have $6000 a year and get better policies or insure themselves.
Logic has to be sound, and valid.
Posing invalid unsound logic as truth is lying.
ilsm
You ask what Romney means by “American values”. I have an uninformed guess. I think he means “Christianity” that is, more exactly, the claim that Christian doctrine is the one truth.
I think that “values” is a code word. Members of the religious right recognize it to refer to their kind of Christianity (which they also call “Christianity” as they firmly believe that non fundamentalist Christians are not Christians). But saying the US government should stand up for an promote “American Values” is not an obvious assault on the first amendment.
Also consider the “who’s side are you on” approach to all questions. The Embassy staff agreed with criticism of a Christian made by Moslems. If the question is always are you with us or with them, this is like agreeing with a subset of those Moslems that the film should be forcibly repressed and with a subset of that subset that the Embassy wall should be scaled.
OK back to American. To many (I don’t know if Romney is one of them or just faking it) it must always be wrong to take the side of a foreigner in a debate with an American.
I am constantly amazed at claims that that highly successful people are stupid, simply because they don’t comport with some other person’s notion of how the world should be viewed. Mitt Romney is a millionaire on his own, though it helps to have been born with a silver spoon. He got himself elected Republican governor of a Blue state, though he isn’t the first to do so recently. He pushed aside a number of other successful, life-long politicians to become the GOP nominee. He ain’t stupid. It’s stupid to suggest that he is.
His problem is that he ran to become the presidential nominee of the GOP in 2012. Saying idiotic things is a job requirement. If anything, Willard is not as good at saying idiotic things as many other Republicans – Newt, for instance – and so comes off badly when he does it. Even if he were better at it, though, to those of us who don’t appreciate and demand idiocy, he’d seem to be saying idiotic things.
It’s the GOP, and probably a growing sense of desperation at his electoral prospects, that make Romney seem such an ass. It ain’t a lack of intelligence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh, I agree, kharris. Romney isn’t ACTUALLY stupid. But I think Obama and the media should start agreeing to take him at his word and believe that he believes what he says–and therefore that he consistently misunderstands common words and clear statements, and conflates things that are clearly separate concepts.
kharris –
Your comment seems quite reasonable, and it hasn’t been until the last 24 hours that I seriously began to doubt Willard’s intelligence. His recent remarks are simply flat-assed stupid on their face; the decision to make them public is stupid on it’s own; and the follow-up decision to double down is to wallow in stupid.
OTOH, it could be that the Rethugs are so used to spoon-feeding stupid to their stupid base that it is now a reflexive reaction.
Either way, the man has horrible judgment, and an understanding of foreign policy at the Sara Palin level.
I sincerely hope that this is the coffin nail in this ignorant, venial, self-serving fool’s campaign.
JzB
kharris
i might disagree. not sure. “stupid is as stupid does”.
but in general humans are no where near as intelligent as the accomplishments of the race would lead you to suspect. even individual high achievers are often quite stupid outside of their own fields.
it isn’t a matter of brain efficiency, it’s a matter of taking the trouble to know what you are talking about… which most of us don’t have the time to do.
i think it is also a matter of brain capacity… which like time is something none of us have as much of as we need in order to avoid being stupid most of the time about most things.
sorry about that. i know no one likes to think of themselves as stupid, and in the ordinary uses of the word, they are probably not. but in the sense of being even often able to say or think the “right” thing about any unstudied aspect of reality… we are all pretty stupid.
making a lot of money does not equate, even approximately, with being a smart politician let alone a smart statesman, or even a decent human being.
oh, and the point of all that was just to urge a little modesty. even if we only manage to do it once in a while, it can help.
I dont know ask that ass monkey brad delong.
It almost seems like strategy more then some pathological thing with Romney. Since being named as VP, Ryan has been dropping some pretty big lies, and Republican members of congress have been doing this pretty bad since they took back the house.
The best explanation I have heard is they are going for those un-engaged voters who don’t really pay attention to anything beyond the headline and sound bites. They know these people will not go and look to see if what was said was true.
Voters who will have already more ore less made up their minds.
Matt J
pretty much true. what they are speaking is “eternal truth” so the fact that the particular circumstances don’t quite fit the model is irrelevant. all they are doing is reminding their believers of why it is so important to save us from the liberals.
He’s not stupid; he’s the hollow man: a man without principle or substance. He has the canny ability to take advantage of situations and weak people or institutions which accounts for his financial success. That’s what he is attempting to do with the Republican party and the country: con them. His potential success is based upon his perception of their gullibility. How else to explain that the race remains too close to call?
Making money at M&A using LBO is not genius, more like huckstering.
Lies repeated enough become truth (Nazis perfected propaganda theory).
Romney sits on a mound of propaganda, which as Mark Twain said is hard.
Romeny is not stupid, he may have a problem remembering the which untruth he is supposed to say.
I’ll stand by my judgment that Romney doesn’t know or care about what is true–I agree with JackD’s “hollow man.” Regardless, voters won’t respond to charges that he’s stupid and they believe all politicians lie. What they hate is a guy who will stab them–personally–in the back, which is what Gingrich was messaging where and when he had the funds to do it. E.g., flip-flops on abortion, closing factories is good, tax cuts for job-creators with Swiss bank accounts, and “saving” Medicare by issuing an insurance coupon instead of paying the doctor bill. A politician may promise a chicken in every pot–a lie–but he’d better not come across as a potential pot thief–worse than a lie.
Spot-on, Jack: He’s the hollow man: a man without principle or substance. He has the canny ability to take advantage of situations and weak people or institutions which accounts for his financial success.
To say that Romney is a liar or to suggest that he ias stupid misses the key component of his personality. Mitt is that kind of liar that we refer to as a coniver. That’s a person who seeks to twist the truth to their own advantage. It requires the ability to lie without hestiation and/or to describe circumstances not as they are, but as the coniver wants others to understand them. A good coniver need not be a genius, but he can’t be a fool. Stupid is too severe a judgement of Romeny’s intellect. He is clever enough to understand his own needs and how to ingratiate himself to others in the process of meeting his needs. And most importantly the coniver has no concern about the facts of a matter in his effort to meet his own needs. Voila!! Mitt Romney.
There is a third possibility. Maybe Mitt has been “brainwashed” just like his dad.
My point (if any) is that just such a radical removal of context (all but the one (or two) word(s) “brainwashed”) played an important role in ending the George Romney 68 campaign.
This is not the sort of event which would slip George’s son’s mind.
Nixon nominated not George Romney about as bad as “invented the internet” (and Scotus) gave us Bush not Gore. Romney was, in fact, behind in the polls already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
Oh disambiguating at Wikipedia I see that the guy who named his son Willard had middle name Wilken.
You know what’s really sad, Robert? It’s that George Romney’s “brainwashed” comment—the word “brainwashed” intended figuratively, but treated, ridiculously, by the press as a literal admission—was an instance of a high-level politician actually leveling with the public about a hugely important matter: the Vietnam War.
And, of course, it’s a key reason why politicians have been so careful, for decades now, not to say anything that smacks of honesty about anything important.
Mitt learned that lesson very, very well, didn’t he?