As someday it may happen
An election we must hold
I’ve got a little list
It’s not a little list
Of the lies and utter falsehoods
That this Romney chap has told
Which must not be dismissed
They cannot be dismissed
Sadly, I don’t have time right now to complete the Mikado list song–might have to revisit this concept, or just let you do it. But the list itself is now in the neighborhood of 700 documented lies, in weekly installments by Steve Benen each Friday on the Maddow Blog. You can find the 35th installment of the list here. It has links to all the previous versions.
(Their standards are a bit stricter than mine–repetitions of the same lie on different occasions counts for them, and some of the lies are, I think, open to interpretation, although an honest observer would have to admit that Romney is at minimum stretching the truth beyond its capacity to recover. With my looser standards, you’d only have perhaps a couple hundred unique lies being told. Which is still plenty of grist for the lyrical mill.)
You are the very model of an Internet contrarian.
There’s the seven hundred billion never cut from Medicare,
And the freeloaders and moochers for whose lives he shows such care.
There’s Obamacare, he’ll kill it dead and leave it in the grass
(Well, except for all the bits that look like what he had in Mass.)
And the factories that closed and all the workers on the street
From the policies when Bush was in the presidential seat.
Mitt would never lie about when he was CEO of Bain,
His tax history’s as open as the windows on a plane.
There’s Iraq that’s in his head which is as hard as Vishnu Schist,
And it must not be dismissed,
It cannot be dismissed.
It’s only a semantic query – but if you can only identify 200 or so lies, whereas they can identify seven hundred, then surely their standards of what defines a lie are looser that yours, not stricter?
I could see the argument either way. If you repeat the same lie ten times, is that, strictly speaking, ten lies? Or is it, strictly speaking, one lie ten times? They go with the former, I go with the latter, but with the former sense of “strictly”.