Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Another Team Obama Lie The Media Ignores

It seems truth is not in the playbook for the Obama campaign. After being called out by the liberal-leaning Washington Post (, Team Obama maintained the allegations in this ad as it continued running mainly in battleground states.

The Obama campaign is at it again. A new ad by the Obama campaign is no different. In fact, it panders towards women, claiming "it's a scary time to be a woman" if Mitt Romney is elected president. See it here:

Wow! Seriously? With 23,000,000 people out of work, record high debt, foreclosures on the rise, and dismal economic expansion, the Obama campaign thinks it'd be a great idea to scare women into voting for the President? This is awful, and the worst part is: the ad is a BIG, FAT LIE.

Politifact rated the ad as "pants on fire." It doesn't get much more dishonest than that:

So again, just like I said in the first link, it appears Team Obama's plan is to simply lie to the American people, throwing whatever it can against the wall while hoping something will stick. Unfortunately, the media not only condones this, but it supplies free advertising for it. proudly displayed the headline "Obama campaign airs second ad hitting Romney on Abortion." If you read only the headline (I've talked about the power of this numerous times), you're left with a negative impression of Romney. Of course, the fact checking portion, you know, that crucially important part about whether the claim is true or not, doesn't appear until the 6th paragraph. CNN writes 5 paragraphs that promote a lie and waits until the 6th to mention how untrue Obama's claims are. This wouldn't be such a big deal if the Obama campaign wasn't called out on this not once, not twice, but time and time again.

What do you think? Should we stand by as Obama boldly lies to our faces? Share your opinions below.


  1. A related but different note, since this topic was brought up the other day, I'd like to bring attention to the fact that politifact also rated Romney's attacks on Obama's 'you didn't build that' speech as a gross distortion:

    What I find grossly ironic though, is that the ad that the Romney campaign ran on this subject actually exemplifies what Obama was talking about. Here is Romney's ad:

    It has Jack Gilchrist, owner of Gilchrist Metal, speak out against the idea that he didn't build everything with his own hands and to recommend otherwise is demonizing him. Yet, he took in the ball-park of over $1.3m in government loans to start and expand his business over the past 40 years; which is EXACTLY the type of thing Obama's speech was talking about:

  2. Obama didn't just start lying. Since the very beginning, he's been the Great Deceiver, the Forked Tongue Wonder, the Devil in Golf Shoes. He and his 'TeamObama' have simply spent the past four years perfecting their technique. Apparently, practice does make perfect.

    The man's a chameleon. On the stump, he's a snake oil salesman, affecting the accent and vernacular of WHOEVER he's talking to, bellowing words and phrases with a tent preacher's lilt.

    ... and his followers respond with a hearty Hal-le-leuja!
    ... and the Main Stream media hails his greatness.
    ... and haloed Angels descend from the Heavens with trumpets blaring
    ... and all SHOULD be right with the world.
    ... Amen!

    But... when called on his outrageous lies

    ... by those not lulled into stupor by the catchy tune
    ... who LISTENED to his words and cried foul,

    he transforms into the soft spoken and deeply saddened victim of untrue, unwarranted, disparaging and vicious attacks leveled upon his poor, down-trodden and innocent personage, by his e-e-e-vil opponent.

    We, who see through his lies, can stand on our soapboxes and speak truth to power... I've done so and lost quite a few 'friends'... my own sister, in chats with our mom, now refers to me as 'that Republican out west'.

    A few, including my aforementioned Mom, have finally woken ... seen through the veil of deceit and have opened their minds to reveal the true 'man behind the curtain.'

    This time around, very much like the last, I fear our efforts alone will NOT be sufficient.

    TeamObama is banking on the fact that Gov. Romney, truly is - a 'nice' man, with principles and value that they do not possess. And thereby will hang the tale.

    Romney can NOT sit back (like McCain did) and let this Chicago thug and his cronies define the conversation.

    For instance - WHO is Obama, really? Will anyone EVER ask him about his REAL relationship with Frank Marshall Davis or Bill Ayers? Where are his school transcripts? Why did he have them sealed? Will anyone EVER ask him about his clearly racist rantings in 'his' book Dreams From My Father? Why did he throw Seal Team Six under the bus - to advance and promote 'his' Bin Laden kill to Hollyweird?

    I know, I should run Romney's campaign! He might not win... but it would surely be fun and colorful!

    1. Good morning Dara. I got a good chuckle out of "the Devil in golf shoes". Thanks for the good laugh this morning.

    2. : ) You're welcome. I've been on sort of a 'rant roll' for the past couple of days...

  3. Rken, so your contention is when 0bama said, "If you've got a business-- you didn't build THAT. Somebody else made that happen" he was talking about THOSE roads and bridges? So, the smartest President in the history of the US doesn't have a firm grasp on the English language?

    Here's what I find grossly ironic; in the 4 paragraphs of "context" according to Politifact the president said:

    1. Success of business was NOT because they were smarter or worked harder.
    2. He spoke of a great teacher somewhere in our life.
    3. He spoke of the free market system.
    4. He spoke of THAT bridges and roads. (Just sounds stupid doesn't it....THAT bridges and roads)
    5. He spoke of the internet.
    6. He spoke of firefighters.
    7. He spoke of the GI Bill
    8. He said "that's how we created the middle class".
    9. He spoke of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam, the internet (again) and the man on the moon.

    He NEVER once mentioned small business loans but that is EXACTLY what he was talking about (according to you). I am glad you can see that when it was never alluded to. I guess when it comes to 0bama we just have to read between the lines, and as long as it reflects well on him you can go with it.

    1. You're being a bit obtuse there slim :) I think it's pretty obvious the main point of Obama's speech was that everyone needs help from someone at some point to be successful.

      There are countless examples of this, and whether or not Obama listed every single specific example known to mankind is irrelevant. The point is still obvious; in that every successful person/business/entity has some help somewhere along the way. It’s actually such an ambiguous, general statement that I’m surprised people don’t fault it just for that (rather than the current approach of making it too specific).

      That said, I definitely agree that Obama's speech and wording of this message was horrible at best. But I still believe it's rather clear what his message is, and I don't necessarily disagree with it either.

      Just like we should all be grateful for the successful in our society and what they bring us, and shouldn't demonize them... We should all also be grateful for the help they/we receive along the way (whether directly related to the government or not) and how our country helps foster it, and not demonize that either. Simple as that.

    2. Or, this entire topic more simply:

      - Obama is accusing the right of demonizing (or ignoring) the tools in place that help all if not 99.99% of the people achieve levels of success.

      - Romney is taking those sentiments as an attack of those it applies to, and accusing Obama of demonizing the successful.

      That's this whole entire 'you didn't build that' argument in a nutshell, based purely off of the speeches they both delivered. Anything else is convolution/sensationalism/political rhetoric, in my view.

      I agree with Obama's point in this more than Romney's. Romney does have an argument for the left 'attacking the successful', but it isn't as strongly supported here by Obama's speech as he's attempting to make it out to be.

  4. @RKen Adding to Slim's comment:

    Nowhere in the article you linked - is repayment of the loan mentioned. If it was NOT repaid - in full - you could rest assured that the high and mighty (ahem... George Soros funded) 'Thinkprogress' would have shouted it from the rooftops, for all to hear.

    Government contracts? Really? Those are monies paid - for goods and/or services rendered - not taxpayer handouts lost - in full - due to failure of the company and subsequent re-write of the 'loan' in bankruptcy to favor Obama bundlers, like say, oh let me think... Solyndra?

    He said what he said... and what he SAID was EXACTLY what he MEANT to say.

    1. The point isn't whether or not they repaid a loan, it's the point that they were helped by someone else.

      As Obama said: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help."

      Romney countered with an ad, featuring a successful business owner that said he didn't need any help.

      Yet, he received help from the government to start and expand his business.

      Understand that point?

  5. RKen

    I think you and I are about as far apart on this as we could be. Allow me to address this.

    First, you, as with many/most on the left, intentionally dodged the entire post of this article (which I most definitely agree with). They are: Obama is LYING in his campaign ads (again), and: the media, by and large, is NOT HOLDING HIM TO IT. His ad on the abortion couldn't be further from the truth. How is this possibly acceptable. So, sticking to the original subjects of this article, what do you think to those?

    Now, I will go down your path and debate the deflective Mitt Romney "you didn't build that" issue you brought up. First, you equate these "lies" to be the same. They are not. The "you didn't build that" used in Romney's ad DID come from Obama. The information in Obama's "Jenny" ad did NOT come from Romney's mouth. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    Secondly, you say "it's obvious what the president meant." No sir, what you're saying it is is not at all. You're just doing what Jon Stewart and the liberal media is doing: trying to spin this away.

    Look at the quote of the speech. Now I'm no english teacher, I'm just a knuckle-dragging Mech engineer, but I know context well. He said,

    "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

    He does, yes, mention through out his speech and in this very paragraph, that yes, people HELP you along the way. There is no denying that. But he then (and this is true), switches context. Let me focus on a couple of these.

    Some people out there claim he meant to say, "you didn't build THOSE." - This is a bad claim and a nice spin. His topic because the businesses. Obama wasn't trying to say, "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build THOSE." How could you possibly fall for this claim? He identified teachers. He identified bridges. THEN he switched to businesses... but goes back to previously mentioned things and meant "those????" To make it clear, if you're in the "those" crowd, the sentence would read: "bad claim and a nice spin. His topic because the businesses. Obama wasn't trying to say, "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build THOSE bridges and roads." Does that make any sense? Does it make a logical case that he would say "if you got a business, you didn't build those roads and bridges?" NO! My case he stands. Any attempt to spin this away is pure garbage.

    The same thing goes for his next sentence: "somebody else made that happen. Does it fit with "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build THOSE bridges and roads. Somebody else made those bridges and roads happen?" Absolutely not. The "if you've got a business" (which is a complete change of context), creates an albatross for your argument.

    I think I've done enough to show this. Obama meant what he meant, just as he told Joe the Plumber in 2008: "To all you people in this crowd, MOST of you don't own businesses. Most of you work for someone who does (those evil bastards). These business owners didn't build their businesses, so through high taxation, we can take from them and give it to those that helped."

    I'm sorry, RKen, but I cannot agree with you at all on this. Just my two cents.

    1. I didn't intentionally dodge anything; this forum allows open discussion of any points regardless of if they're directly related to the main post or not. I very specifically prefaced my first response with the fact that I was continuing the discussion from another day (this one:

      I'm not sure why you’re assuming I defend Obama’s actions in the misleading abortion ad just because I’m not addressing it, and if you must know I don't discriminate on who lies where for any campaign. I won't defend Obama or attempt to make it any less egregious than if it was Romney proven to be lying, but that’s not the reason I was posting here today.

      Also, you're continuing to make a lot of assumptions here. I didn't equate the Jenny Ad with the Romney ad at all, in any way. I'm not sure where you got that impression? I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but that is not at all what I was doing. I, again, was simply continuing a discussion from a previous post, in this one (otherwise I’d likely just be talking to myself, since people likely aren’t checking older posts).

      I think you completely missed what I was saying about Obama’s speech as well.

      Here it is, as simple as I can possibly make it:
      Liberals have a strong belief that the successful should give back to the systems in place that helped them become successful, that everyone has depended on in some way or another. It’s an argument for how government/pooled resources can help people and businesses thrive.

      It is a very clearly socialistic philosophy, which again is why I’m shocked that the GOP hasn’t taken that and run with it as opposed to the taking the ‘you didn’t build it!’ line, and spinning it to some sort of literal “your hands didn’t hammer that nail into the wood” meaning that misses the issue. Which is also what you seem to be doing here.

      I can’t possibly see how you can think this is anything other than what I said though, being 100% realistic. Play with the semantics and word-by-word of the speech all you want until you’re blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that this is the liberal stance that Obama was attempting to portray (and is consistent with the liberal lean towards policies related to socialism).

      Fact-checker sites agree in this as well. This isn't some crazy liberal media ruse.

  6. @RKen... This is the second instance in which you've A) dodged the issue totally and B) disputed someone who's calling a spade a spade... insisting it's not a 'liberal ruse'. Yes, it is a ruse, slight of hand, ...nothing to see here, move along... call it what you want. TeamObama and the rest of the Libs are NOT telling the truth.

    'Liberals have a strong belief that the successful should give back to the systems in place...'

    How about I play Devil's Advocate? Just WHERE did the money come from - for the Government to build all those roads and bridges? WHERE does the money come from to PAY the teachers, firemen, policemen, etc, etc, etc.?

    Answer: Taxes, taken under threat of FORCE from labor of WORKING citizens.

    Does the government engage in gainful employment? No! Why? Because government CREATES nothing... government CONSUMES. Like a ravenous beast, government opens it maw - and gobbles up the fruits of the LABOR of its citizens.

    In that TAXES create all these wonderful government goodies AND we NOW have 49% of our citizenry that pay NO federal tax AT ALL... what do ya say we keep THEM OFF of OUR (the taxpayer's) roads and bridges? How about we keep them out of OUR (the taxpayer's) schools, public parks, etc. THEY didn't 'contribute', so why should they enjoy usage? Wouldn't even YOU call that 'fair'?

    OR how about this? Unless you have SOME 'skin in the game' in the form of SOME tax revenue payment for all these great government goodies - that you now enjoy FREE... you don't get to vote? Fair?

    George Washington said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

    1. Entirely missing my point here, again.

      Politifact itself came out and called Romney's campaign against what Obama said a gross misrepresentation of what was meant. The same source that LME referenced as calling out Obama on the lies in his abortion ad. So are you calling politifact liberally biased too now? Or is it just anytime their facts don't agree with what you believe?

      I get the feeling this isn't getting anywhere though. I've reiterated and simplified my point so many times over that I'm not sure how to spell it out more clearly.

      1. I'm not addressing LME's post here about the abortion ad.

      2. I'm not defending Obama about the abortion ad.

      3. I'm not comparing the abortion ad to Romney's ads.

      4. I am focusing on what Obama's message was in that 'you didn't built that!' speech, which politifact (among others) agrees with.

      5. I'm not making an argument in support of Obama's message of the 'liberal belief of giving back to the system that helped you' as much as I'm attempting to explain the argument here to people that seem to never have heard of this (or are ignoring it). Or think it's some new made-up idea to cover for Obama. Or whatever.

  7. @Rken - No you absolutely could NOT be more clear. You've made it CHRYSTAL clear that you're covering for your 'guy.'

    Won't work with me! I SAW the speech, the whole thing, uncut, and heard it with my OWN two ears... complete with gyrations and silly affected preacher man accent.

    Where I come from - A man SAYS what he MEANS and MEANS what he SAYS... His word is his bond and he doesn't want OR need some pin-headed 'commentator', lame stream media boob or 'yes man' follower to make up some BS spin story to EXPLAIN.

    Okay... end of rant.

    1. So, politifact is covering for “my guy” too then? :)

      That also means that factcheck is too?

      Funny enough they almost say exactly what I said:
      "There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”

      In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

      It’s actually a very socialistic idea, yes, but there’s no question that’s what he was talking about (and unbiased resources agree).

      Both of those websites criticize Obama and Romney equally in countless articles, backing up their assessments with as much cold hard unbiased fact as possible. This very post by LME references a politifact article that calls Obama's ad on abortion a "pants on fire lie." Yet, these websites are trying to cover for him? Which is it?

    2. Unlike Obama, I stand by what I said: Where I come from, a man SAYS what he MEANS and MEANS what he SAYS!

      Romney's ad used Obama's OWN words, unedited, exactly as they were spoken. No spin necessary - the FACT was plain to hear.

      We KNEW Obama was a socialist all along; we were pooh poohed, called haters (and worse). When The Won finally showed his TRUE colors, all h*ll broke loose ... and HE's too much of a coward to own up to it.

      Politifact, factcheck, and you ignore WHAT he SAID in your attempts to spin it to MEAN what you WISH he'd said. Their 'explaination' 4. He spoke of THAT bridges and roads... makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to any clear thinking person.

      A man is only as good as his word. Obama is a consummate liar and an epic FAILURE. Anyone who votes for him, deserves the consequences.

      Historically - they've done away with the 'useful idiots' first.