Presidential campaigns generally possess some flexibility, shall we say, when it comes to the truth. Things we would not tolerate in a marriage, in a friendship, even in the workplace, we routinely sigh and accept when it comes to politics. Yet the Romney's latest bout with dishonesty crosses even that line and offers a nice opportunity to think about the standards that we should have. Or, heck, that I have, to be clear.
Let's begin with two acceptable, if annoying, examples. The Romney campaign charges that the Obama Administration's enforcement of the Dodd/Frank Act that regulates financial institutions reflects the president's ignorance of and dislike for business. Beyond that, his efforts to regulate finance will cut off job growth. None of this is particularly true; the president has repeatedly lauded business and, to say the least, corporate profits and, more specifically, financial sector profits have done very well under Obama. Equally important, there's little evidence that financial regulation hurts job growth. But, in a larger sense, Obama thinks financial regulation is a good idea and Romney thinks it is a bad idea. Romney exaggerates, but his charges are at least in line with the determination of the Obama Administration to keep an eye on the financial industry. If you're a liberal, you don't have to like Romney's rhetoric, but it's probably ok.
Similarly, Obama has charged that Romney's experience at Bain Capital proves that he should not be trusted with stewardship of the American economy. He broke up companies, shut down factories, eliminated jobs, shipped them overseas, and devastated communities. Romney responds that he wasn't in charge of Bain when the outsourcing of jobs occurred, despite the fact that the company listed him as in charge on those pesky SEC filings. Again, Obama's probably exaggerating the extent of Romney's personal involvement with specific decisions, but in a broad sense, the charges are in line with Romney's tenure at Bain. Those were the strategies he used and there's little doubt that his main concern was making money and he would happily eliminate jobs if that's what it took.
So, both of these examples show exaggerations, raise hackles on partisans, draw fierce rebuttals and so forth, but are generally in line with campaigns past. The latest Romney charge is a lie and raises some serious questions about the candidate's character.
Particularly since Republican governors gained control of swing states during the 2010 elections, they have sought to limit voting. From voter ID laws to fewer polling places, from limiting early voting to eliminating it entirely, Republicans have consistently sought to lower turnout. They claim to be fighting fraud, but, as their court filings in Pennsylvania admit, they can point to no instances of in-person electoral fraud--dead people voting, people voting under false names, etc. The legislation is a solution in search of a problem.
The true problem? Republicans are on the wrong side of demography. The more people that vote, the less likely they are to win. In particular, the more female, black, brown, poor people who vote, the less likely they are to win. So, they have sought to pass laws to restrict the access of those folks. Republicans want a small electorate.
They particularly want it in a swing state like Ohio. In 2004, there was Election Day chaos in the state as long lines prevented many from voting and arguably affected the result of the election. Ohio then reformed the system to allow for early voting, including the three days prior to the election. The 2008 election went off without a hitch. When Republicans gained control, they eliminated that provision, among others, except for military personnel. They are the only ones who can vote in the 3 days prior to the election. The Obama campaign filed suit, arguing that the change restricts voting and occurred too late before the coming election. They argued that all people should be able to vote in those three days.
The Romney campaign then claimed in a post on its Facebook page that the Obama campaign sought to restrict the right of military folks to vote. Got that? The Obama campaign is trying to expand the right to vote, to allow all, including those who already possess that right, to vote during those three days, but Romney claims it's taking the right to vote away from our soldiers and sailors.
There's a great, big, fat lie. This isn't like the two cases above; this isn't an instance when there's an exaggeration that is ok because it reflects the general tenor of a campaign's position. Romney's claim is precisely the opposite of Obama's position. Equally important, the claim is a deeply emotional one--we feel strongly about our military and Romney is misleading and abusing our nation's heroes.
When a candidate is willing to lie to those who would sacrifice their lives for this country, when he is willing to use them to serve his self-interest, then we should ask whether he's fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Comments