It is all what it is. Since 1800 we have come to routinely expect lies, deceit and heavily filtered info by candidates, their campaigns, and their supporters.
We have a choice. Some of us vote for the lesser of two evils. Some vote for the supposed philosophy espoused by a candidate in the hope that it will prevail.
Yet we all must be responsible for seeking out the facts on our own and being skeptical of everyone.
We should consider perhaps that the more the flag is waved, or our hearts are appealed to, then the higher the chance that a smokescreen is being created for something else.
… and the WINNER is (so far):
Politifact has judged Obama public statements of fact to flunk the truthfulness test 31% of the time. Obama is also the recipient of 6 ‘Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire’ judgements … http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
HOWEVER, Romney WINS the untruthfulness contest easily with 43% of his statement of facts flunking the truthfulness test … Romney also beats out Obama badly in the ‘Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire’ judgements against him … http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
So should we trust someone more that misleads us 31% of the time, rather than 43% of the time?
Or is it what it is and we should just vote A) the lesser of two evils, or B) vote for the philosophy, hoping it prevails, and consider lying an All-American election normality? Election 2012 is not a contest of angels.