Republican logic and rhetoric: Ornstein and Mann say (1) the Republicans lied wholesale throughout the fall 2012 campaign and (2) the mainstream media was too worried about the appearance of impartiality to cover that story. Mark Hemingway's rebuttal (in The Weekly Standard) of Ornstein and Mann uses a curious strategy. Hemingway notes that Politifact, an important national fact-checker, found that Republicans lied about three times as egregiously as the Democrats did. He then uses this point as evidence that O&M are wrong--see, the story was covered--, ignoring that Politifact is corroborating the first half of O&M's claim. So Hemingway gets us to focus on one exception to the second half of O&M's thesis, and denies the whole first half, which he dismisses as an ideological disagreement rather than a case of outraged empiricism--which is exactly the core of what's at issue. This will presumably keep him in good standing with Republicans, but it also makes him complicit in their dishonesty. We have had five years--or 200+ years--of this. In 2008 the most disheartening thing about Barack Obama's campaign was his readiness to throw truth under the bus. But most of his speeches and ads were mostly true--while half or more of Senator McCain's weren't. (See FactCheck and Politifact. Lots of "Pants on Fire" lies.) Again this year, judged by a standard of truthfulness, the President's campaign earned no honors. And again the Republicans were worse, far worse. I don't see what to do about it except not to do it and try to persuade others not to do it. Cite sources (real sources). Make concessions where appropriate. Don't demonize; stick to the record and the facts and the issues. "In war, truth is the first casualty" is an insight of millennias' standing. Too much of our politics is now conducted by the abysmal standards of war. There are many unanticipated and unrecognized consequences.