Lying in the Campaign

The New York Times is out with an article lamenting the likelihood that the presidential campaign will be fought with lies. Oh, the horror of it all! The Times tells us sanctimoniously that lying in the campaign will make governing difficult after that. The centerpiece of the Times article is a recent Romney ad that took Obama's words out of context although for "balance" purposes, the Times also mentions a blatant lie by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the DNC. Only the Times could be this tone deaf to the reality of our current government.

The Times acts as if lying is something new which is arising in the campaign. What complete nonsense. Obama has been lying for months and years as president. Here are a few of his best lies:

1) If you like your current insurance plan and doctor, you will be able to keep them with no cost increase under Obamacare.
2) When I get elected I am going to go line by line through the budget and eliminat unnecessary federal spending.
3) The Stimulus has kept unemployment down and helped grow the economy. (Even the Congressional Budget Office now confirms that the net effect of the Stimulus has been to reduce economic long term growth while spending just under a trillion dollars.)
4) I have made my decisions on when and where to deploy and remove troops from Afghanistan strictly on the basis of what is best for our forces and not on political grounds.
5) The failure of the super committee was due to Republican refusals to cooperate. (In fact, Obama stayed away from the deliberations rather than attempting to bring them to a successful close, and the Democrats held out for a deal that would include over a trillion dollars in new taxes.)

The list of lies could go on and on, but you all should get the point. Indeed, I believe that nearly everyone in America other than the Times recognizes that Obama is a liar. But the Times is right about one thing: it is hard for him to govern.