The issues are important, but someone who buys into obvious lies and hyperbole on one issue is not credible on any other. Most of us don't have sufficient economic understanding to be able to pick apart the data and logic that support his other conclusions. Besides, character cannot be compartmentalized-- bad character, bad faith, seep from one area of our lives to another, from one issue to another. In my view, that was the lesson of the Clinton administration, that people with no integrity in one area of their lives won't have any in any other area either.
There are plenty of intelligent and knowledgable people writing on every issue under the sun, and on every side of the issues-- there's no need to ever listen to someone who believes and propagates lies.
Your point is well taken.
I've never understood this type of thinking. My daddy always taught me to evaluate the sense of the words rather than what I think of the source. If a skinhead said that water is wet, that does not automatically make it dry.
Is it possible that a person can hate Mr. Bush and still be right about his numbers? Is it possible that a person can believe that there were no WMDs in Iraq and still be knowledgeable and intuitive about economics?
Unfortunate to listen to them, tragic to elect them.