Today's issue has to do with accusing your opponent of doing what it is you have done.  Here's a quote from the first article produced by The Hill.

"The national debt surpassed $15 trillion for the first time on Wednesday, according to the Treasury Department, and Republicans are seizing on the occasion to pin the blame on President Obama."

Obama is to blame?  Really?  I doubt it.   I've noticed that for the past ten years or so, especially since Karl Rove, the conservatives have been using a very effective tactic.  I think of it as preemptive blaming.  A sort of Tu Quoque before the other guy even gets a chance to point the finger.  Apparently, many Americans believe that if someone shouts accusations loudly and for a long period, the claim is justified.  Moreover an unsupported claim should be re-asserted without any real evidence backing it except using ad populum fallacies.  In addition to that, constant and continual belief preservation tactics should be employed.  Why?  From Washington Monthly's blog "Political Animal" comes information like:  

"1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget

  

   1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt. "

"1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. The debt clock, which hadn’t been programmed to run backwards, is unplugged."

This would have been under Clinton, of course.  But then:

"2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt. "

And so on. The facts are evidently quite different from the claims. Of course, exaggerating and pontificating are not GOP-only issues.  Politicians are pretty good at blaming someone else for anything that goes wrong.  Where this is distressing, at least to me, is in the blatancy of the unsupported claims and the number of Americans willing to buy any story that's anti-Obama.