There was the following sentence in the article titled, “Romney says inaccurate attack ad is fair” on IowaPolitics.com (November 23), which was studded with several expressions I’ve not gotten used to:
"What's sauce for the goose, is now sauce for the gander," Romney said. "(Obama) spoke about the economy being a huge burden for John McCain. This ad points out that, it's now your turn ... This economy is going to be your albatross."
The ad was rated “pants on fire” by Politifact, a Pulitzer-Prize winning project of St. Petersburg Times that checks the truthfulness of political statements. This rating indicates that Obama’s words were distorted.”
I can roughly guess what the phrase, “What’s sauce for the goose, is now sauce for the gander. This economy is going to be your albatross," mean. We have a similar (I think) Japanese saying: When you curse someone, you dig two holes to bury at the same time, one for him and one for yourself.
However, I’m puzzled about the use of "pants on fire" to serious issue like political and authoritatative research subjects, because my understanding of "pants on fire" is the phrase from children’s game or taunting – “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” Can I say "What you are saying is pants on fire" when I don’t trust what my elderly friend says?