David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Get my RSS | Follow @davidcorndc

Campaign 2012: The End of Political Truth?

Election Day will determine whether Mitt Romney will be rewarded for excessive fact-bending and outright lying.

—By David Corn

| Mon Nov. 5, 2012 4:13 AM PST

The most significant public statement from a presidential campaign this year did not pass through the lips of a candidate. It came during the Republican convention in Tampa when Mitt Romney's pollster, Neil Newhouse, declared at a breakfast panel organized by ABC News, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." With these words, Romney's chief numbers guy was issuing a manifesto: This campaign is about saying whatever needs to be said to win, reality and facts be damned. It was an appropriate slogan, for the 2012 campaign has been profoundly shaped by Romney's willingness to obfuscate and dissemble far beyond the admittedly low norm of modern American politics. This election was not only about a clash of political civilizations; it was about the end of political truth.

All politicians shade the truth—or lie. Various fact-checking outfits have rapped President Barack Obama for making false statements. But Romney pushed the envelope this election cycle. He didn't merely shift shapes and flip-flop excessively—or, flip-flop-flip, considering his last-minute, dare-devilish swerve toward the middle on abortion, gay rights, and immigration. He didn't only hype his past history and qualifications (I created 100,000 jobs at Bain!) and issue grand and hollow promises about his proposed policies (my economic plan will lead to 12 million jobs). He didn't just mislead through the selective use of facts (the Benghazi raid was proof of Obama's foreign policy fecklessness). Romney engaged in foundational lying.

[Read the full article]

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Obama Dares to Say It: Romney Lies

—By David Corn

| Tue Oct. 30, 2012 9:46 AM PDT

Within the nation's rough-and-tumble political discourse—whether it be on the floor of the House or Senate, on the campaign trail, or in the newsrooms and editorial offices of mainstream media outlets—there is often a disinclination to use a certain word: "lie." It is a serious charge to render, and conventional pols, pundits, reporters, and media bigshots often shy away from it, resorting to other means of discussing a falsehood from an official or candidate. Common cop-outs include: "that's stretching the truth," "those facts are not correct," and "the experts dispute that." As the author of The Lies of George W. Bush, I certainly know that in many quarters calling a politician or officeholder a liar is considered a step too far, given that such an accusation is a judgment of motive and intent and, thus, an assault on character. (Remember the famous line from Seinfeld: "It's not a lie if you believe it.") In recent years, MSM factcheckers have found creative ways to dub a lie a lie. Politifact.com awards a "pants on fire" rating to egregiously false statements; the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler assigns Pinocchios to untrue assertions. Yet deploying the l-word is unusual.

Obama dared to cross that line with a new campaign ad. Entitled "Collapse," the spot targets Mitt Romney's over-the-top and recklessly untrue claim that as a consequence of Obama bailing-out the auto industry, Chrysler is moving Jeep production jobs from the United States to China. Romney, as I've reported, invested heavily in firms that outsourced (or exploited outsourcing) to China when he was leading Bain Capital. (See here and here.) Yet in the closing days of the 2012 campaign, Romney has been trying to turn Obama's strength (he saved Detroit) into a liability by making a phony charge about Jeep jobs. Numerous media accounts have noted that Romney is dead wrong, and Chrysler itself has declared this is a false claim. Romney, as is his practice, has refused to apologize.

So in this ad, the Obama campaign notes, "after Romney’s false claim of Jeep outsourcing to China, Chrysler itself has refuted Romney's lie." It's a bit of a glancing blow. The ad, which also highlights Romney's past opposition to Obama's auto industry rescue, does not use the other l-word: "liar." Yet at the end, it nearly says that: "Mitt Romney: wrong then; dishonest now."

In 1996, when conservative New York Times columnist William Safire called Hillary Clinton a "congenital liar," he sparked a media firestorm. (President Bill Clinton's press secretary, Mike McCurry, said at the time, "the president, if he were not the president, would have delivered a more forceful response to that on the bridge of Mr. Safire's nose.") Since then, there have been few high-profile deployments of the l-bomb in Washington circles (except, of course, during the Clinton impeachment). Yet the reluctance to call a lie a lie (or a liar a liar) works to the advantage of politicians who do fib, prevaricate, and out-right lie. It is easier for them to get away with mugging the truth, if others are hesitant to use plain language in response. Obama's lie-charging ad might work because Romney has developed (at least among some voters) a reputation for shiftiness. But if Obama should not triumph next Tuesday, the real question may be whether he waited too long to wage this fundamental attack on his opponent's character.

Obama Crew: It's About the Math, Not Mittmentum

—By David Corn

| Mon Oct. 29, 2012 9:31 AM PDT

With the 2012 race Sandy-fied—President Barack Obama has canceled campaign events to tend to concentrate on the hurricane and its aftermath—the Obama campaign's top two strategists, David Axelrod and Jim Messina, held a conference call with reporters Monday morning to contend there's no such thing as Mittmentum. As could be expected, the pair said the Obama campaign is better positioned in this final week of the campaign. Axe noted that this is not due "to a mystical faith in a wave [of pro-Obama voters] that's going to come." It is attributable, he said, to hard-and-fast data regarding early voting in several states and polls in the swing states.

"You're going to get spun and spun and spun" by the Romney camp, Axelrod told reporters on the call. He urged the journalists to "focus on the data."

Messina pointed to the lead item in Politico's "Playbook" today, which outlined why each campaign believes it is winning. The Romney gang focused on intangibles, including the possibility of lousy jobs numbers being released this Friday: "We're focused, but we're loose, unlike our friends in Chicago." The Obama team was fixated on statistical indicators: "The early vote numbers make clear that the right combination of diversity, female voters and young voters are showing up. In Iowa and Nevada, we're racking up 2-1 margins... We're cutting their absentee margin in Florida, with big registration and early-vote numbers in North Carolina... Now they face a superior organization, which makes all the difference in a close election."

And that's sort of how the call went, with Messina citing metrics and data. "We're leading in every battleground state." he stressed. "We're in the close race we've always prepared for." He cited two recent polls showing Obama with a lead in Virginia. Axelrod noted that the campaign's organizational endeavors have propelled "sporadic voters" to the polls for early voting. This campaign, he said, doesn't concentrate on registered or likely voters; "we pay more attention to actual voters."

The campaign's top duo noted that Obama has led in 14 of the last 16 polls in Ohio (Romney and Obama tied in two) and that early-voting in Florida has essentially erased the Republican's advantage in mail-in ballots there. Again and again, they contended that Romney is struggling with the electoral map and that his campaign has repeatedly made claims that did not pan out: we're surging in Michigan, Pennsylvania is tightening. Obama still has a double-digit lead among women voters, Axelrod said.

At this point in the campaign, the Obama strategists are sticking with what's always worked for them: the math. During the 2008 primary campaign, they were obsessed with the delegate count and, as Hillary Clinton fought on, insisted continuously that the numbers favored them. They were right. Now, they are asserting once again that the fundamental calculations are on their side—and using the data to counter the Romney campaign's claims of inevitability.

Reality-based spin does have its benefits. But with a hurricane slamming into the east coast and the race still tight (and within the margin of error in many critical states), the math could change by—or on—Election Day. "We like where we are," Axelrod said. Maybe he does, but he also told reporters, "In eight days, we'll know who was bluffing." That was one assertion that could not be denied.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign has put out a memo outlining much of its eight--days-out case. You can read it here.

Romney to Business Crowd: Obama Sees You As an "Evil"

The GOP candidate—and his wife—are caught on tape at a private fundraiser dismissing the president as not a "grown-up" and an arch foe of commerce.

—By David Corn

| Mon Oct. 29, 2012 3:03 AM PDT

Ever since I revealed Mitt Romney's 47 percent rant, tips and tapes have come through the transom—including this and this. And another source who asked not to be identified just sent me an audio recording of a private Mitt Romney fundraiser from earlier this year. At this event, Romney didn't decry half of the nation, but he and Ann Romney each expressed disdain for President Barack Obama, with the Republican presidential candidate asserting that Obama considers businesspeople "a necessary evil" and his wife suggesting that the president was not a "grown-up."

On March 27, as Romney was still fighting for the Republican presidential nomination, he and Ann attended a fundraiser in Irvine, California, at the home of Michelle and David Horowitz, a former cement business owner who runs a private equity fund. The $1,000-per-plate outdoors luncheon (or $2,500 for those wanting to participate in a photo reception with Romney) drew much of Orange County's Republican elite.

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" remarks:

The Story Behind the 47 Percent Video

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

Romney "47 Percent" Fundraiser Host: Hedge Fund Manager Who Likes Sex Parties

Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video

Obama Strikes Back—With "47 Percent"

Who Was at Romney's "47 Percent" Fundraiser?

Romney mainly delivered his standard stump speech to the 100-person-plus crowd, and he took only three questions. During the more intimate $50,000-per-plate 47 percent fundraiser in May, Romney didn't give much of a speech, and he spent most of his time with these superdonors responding to their queries. (The bigger contribution apparently earns donors more quality time with the candidate.) But at the Horowitzes' home in the exclusive Shady Canyon neighborhood, Romney did make several revealing comments.

After being introduced, the Republican candidate noted that he had been pushed into his second campaign for president by his wife:

David, you mentioned Ann, and the fact that she insisted that I get in this race. That is the truth. I wanted to talk it over with her. And every time I'd say, "Let's talk about the pros and cons," she'd say, "Talk to the hand, talk to the hand. We're just doing this. We've got to do it." And so she absolutely insisted that I get in this because she was convinced that I was the only one that had the capacity to beat President Obama.

Romney then asked Ann to say a few words, and she explained that she had been so insistent because she did not consider Obama to be a "grown-up":

You know—the ship's going over the waterfall, it's almost there. And we look what's happening in Greece, and we look what's happening around the world, we look what's happening internationally. This is a frightening world, and we need a grown-up, and we need someone that understands the economy. So I'm glad…Mitt is grown up to you all.

(This remark was not a one-off. In August, Ann Romney, talking about the gender gap, said, "I'm hearing from so many women that may not have considered voting for a Republican before that said, it's time for the grown-up to come.")

Romney's pitch to this well-heeled O.C. crowd was heavy on celebrating entrepreneurs. He claimed that Obama and his supporters were opposed to success, declaring, "Heaven help us if we have people who try to divide America between those that have succeeded and those that haven't." And Romney, who possesses not one but two graduate degrees from Harvard, blasted Obama's economic policies for being crafted by Ivy League experts:

What they have in their mind is a vision of America dominated by government, by individuals they respect, people like themselves: highly educated, spent a lot of time in the faculty club at Harvard, and they believe they can guide the economy better than can individuals all pursuing their own dream. It does make sense, after all, that smart people, bureaucrats can sit down and do a better job deciding which type of energy company to invest in, which type of technology to invest in, what kind of health care you should have, who's your provider—all these smart people could do a better job. It makes all the sense in the world as opposed to saying individuals all doing whatever the heck they want, some without education, can go off and build businesses and succeed or fail. And yet that of course, that latter model, is the only one in the history of the world that's ever worked to lift people out of poverty and create permanent prosperity.

Romney repeated his usual found-to-be-false talking points: Obamacare is a government takeover; if it stands, half of the US economy will be "controlled by government." He accused the president of conspiring to cause high energy prices. ("Look, these guys are trying to drive up the price of energy in this country in order for solar and wind to be able to be more economic.")

He dramatically cast the election as a black-and-white contest with Obama waging a "war on business and economic freedom." Romney repeatedly professed his "love" for business and, in particular, the business people before him. Using supercharged rhetoric, he said that Obama had a beef against such people and viewed them as "a necessary evil—and maybe not so necessary":

I'm convinced that if this president is reelected, the war on business and economic freedom will continue. I don't think the president likes you very much. If you're in business, I think he looks at you as a necessary evil—and maybe not so necessary. I love you, all right? I love, I love business. I love people who employ other people, who have dreams and ideas, and are willing to start enterprises, and put people to work—all good things grow from successful enterprises. Businesses—good jobs come from good businesses.

Romney went on to bemoan the fact that some businesses preferred to set up shop in China than the United States, but without mentioning that this is often because China has low wages and weak labor rights and environmental protections:

When I heard the head of Coca-Cola say that the business environment in America is less hospitable than the business environment in China, I knew we had a problem. I want to make sure that America has the most attractive business conditions in the world—that every entrepreneur once again says, "I want to be an American." Whether it's energy or regulation or tax policy or labor policy or legal policy or health care policy—I want America to be the best place for business.

This seemed a clear indication that Romney would place workplace conditions, environmental protections, and other safeguards a far second to industry imperatives. Moments later, the crowd applauded him enthusiastically.

During the brief Q&A, Romney hailed fracking and denounced the new START treaty Obama negotiated with the Russians as kowtowing to Moscow (though 71 senators voted for its ratification). But perhaps his most heartfelt remark came when he was concluding his talk and told these donors, "I want to let you go back to work so you can earn more money to give to me."

You can listen to the full tape here.

UPDATE: A source who attended the event says there were over 400 people in attendance.

Convicted Tax Cheat Attended Romney 47 Percent Fundraiser

The candidate lambasted Americans who don't pay income taxes…in front of an audience that included one businessman who'd gone to jail for evading them.

—By David Corn

| Thu Oct. 25, 2012 6:33 AM PDT

When Mitt Romney assailed Americans who he claimed don't pay federal income taxes during his infamous 47 percent rant in May, one of the guests in the room for this intimate Boca Raton fundraiser was a convicted tax cheat who had gone to jail for failing to pay a quarter of a million dollars owed to Uncle Sam.

James Batmasian, an influential Florida developer and philanthropist, was among the well-heeled crowd at this $50,000-a-plate dinner, which was held at the home of private equity mogul Marc Leder. According to his wife, Marta Batmasian, a member of Romney's Florida finance committee, her husband had attended as her guest after she was "invited for being a donor at the required level." Weeks before the event, she had contributed $50,000 to the Romney presidential effort.

[Read the full article]