Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Dan MacLeod

Long post alert.

So this is disappointing, but not surprising...Paul Ryan's speech at the GOP convention began with a story about an auto plant that shut down that Obama had promised to keep open.  The problem?  The plant shut down in December 2008, when Bush was still president.  Oh well...message sent.

Another theme at the convention was the rallying cry "We built it," an angry response to Obama's assertion, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that."  The problem?  The quote is taken out of context; Obama was talking about the infrastructure that businesses use every day: roads, bridges, and whatnot, all built with taxpayer money.

On Monday, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse, defending the campaign's blatantly false ads claiming President Obama removed work requirements from welfare, said, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

Edit: I apologize for coming off as entirely partisan...let's be clear that the Democrats are not angels themselves.  One video they released attacking Romney for his tax situation and wealth showed a video of Ann Romney on horseback, a symbol of prestige and wealth.  Only, horseback riding is a treatment for Ann's multiple sclerosis.  Similarly, in an effort to characterize Romney as a heartless job destroyer, the Democrats have overreached on claims that he outsourced jobs overseas, and that he did little to create jobs when he was governor (The year before he took office, Massachusetts ranked 50th in job creation.  In the last year he was in office, it ranked 28th).  You stay classy, DNC. End edit.

The truth is inconvenient when you're running a political campaign, and outrage, not matter how it's manufactured, is a more important commodity come election time.  But the idea that the leadership of our country can be won via a hustle, a long con of fabrications and systematically misinforming easily influenced voting blocks, it sickens me.  We have judges in courtrooms to safeguard the integrity of the process, to make rulings and to punish the prosecution or the defense if they violate those rules, but when it comes to political elections, we have to rely in sites like, which, while helpful to voters who want to education themselves, have no ability other than to report.

So my question is why don't we have something similar in the political process?  Why does the process of choosing out country's leader for the next four years not have the level of integrity of a DUI trial?  Why isn't there a non-partisan panel that reviews the statements coming from each campaign and respond accordingly?  Fine them.  Take away delegates.  Do whatever it takes to stop this ridiculousness, because right now, the election isn't about issues; it's about who can run the best horse-and-pony show, and whose snake oil has the prettiest label.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded