There's nothing like just saying what you think. The Professor (my emphasis):
I was deeply radicalized by the 2000 election. At first I couldn’t believe that then-candidate George W. Bush was saying so many clearly, provably false things; then I couldn’t believe that nobody in the news media was willing to point out the lies. (At the time, the Times actually told me that I couldn’t use the l-word either). That was when I formulated my “views differ on shape of planet” motto.The post contains other examples, but the bare fact stands. In the literal sense of "literally," it's literally true that every assertion in Romney's stump speech is false. Each one.
Now, however, Mitt Romney seems determined to rehabilitate Bush’s reputation, by running a campaign so dishonest that it makes Bush look like a model of truth-telling.
I mean, is there anything at all in Romney’s stump speech that’s true? It’s all based on attacking Obama for apologizing for America, which he didn’t, on making deep cuts in defense, which he also didn’t, and on being a radical redistributionist who wants equality of outcomes, which he isn’t. When the issue turns to jobs, Romney makes false assertions both about Obama’s record and about his own. I can’t find a single true assertion anywhere.
Has the entire media-candidate nexus turned into a huge PR & ad campaign, in which words are chosen only for their effectiveness in moving the listener to action, just like a Walmart or Viagra (or beer-sanctioned "manliness") ad?
The answer, of course, is Yes, and has been for a while. The good news? People are actually noticing.
And you have to believe that Krugman is throwing down the challenge especially in the face of this.
Occupy the Truth, sir.
GP
