Archives for 2003

Several commenters in my post below about Kevin Drum’s Taxonomy of Foolishness seem to think I am missing the point, but in reality, I think it is they whoare having trouble grasping my objections. I am going to try this one more time, and then, perhaps my objections to this nonsense will be understood.

I guess the very best way to start this discussion is with a picture of a cat. Below is a picture of Kevin’s cat, Inkblot:

By any standards, Inkblot appears to be a happy cat. At any rate, what would everyone’s reaction be if I made the following statement:

Kevin Drum’s cat, Inkblot, has three legs.

Time for Example #2, and we must reach into the sack of cold war jokes to help make the point. Here goes:

An American and a Soviet were in a foot race. The American won the race, and the next day in the Soviet-run newspaper Tass, the headline as follows:

Russian Comes in Second, Amercians Beat Only One Country

Now, if you think that both of those statements were lies, chances are you and I are not going to see anything eye to eye from here on out, because neither of those statements were lies. They were misleading as hell, but they were not lies. And this is what is driving me crazy about the Democrats and their current attempt to take EVERYTHING Bush says and call it a lie.

In the course of American history, politicians have been known to put the best face on their policies. They have been known to use statistics which best shape their case. Environmental groups have been known to make dire predictions based on weak science, feminist groups have been known to call all men ‘potential rapists.’ Why, one previous President said all of the folowing things:

“I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we’re going to make to have a short-term economic strategy.”

or

“That child would be alive today if that gun had had a child trigger lock on it.”

or

In the 60 Minutes interview, Steve Kroft asked: “I’m assuming from your answer that you’re categorically denying you’ve ever had an affair with Gennifer Flowers?” Clinton replied: “I’ve said that before, and so has she.” In his deposition in the Paula Jones case, Clinton admitted having sex with Flowers.

and

“All I’ve been asked about by the press are a woman I didn’t sleep with and a draft I didn’t dodge.” – ABC News’ Nightline, February 12, 1992.

All of which are at the very least misleading statements, yet there never seemed to be any outrage bubbling up from the left? What is the difference?

The difference, of course, is clear- Bush is a Republican, and thus, every attempt must be made to contort, distort, selectively misquote, and obfuscate so that every statement, regardless of how innocuous or accurate, is portrayed as a lie. As I stated before, this is an election strategy, not a concern for accuracy in politics. Thus, when Bush states “More than 40 percent of people who receive dividends make under $50,000 per year” it must be portrayed as a lie because there might be someone out there who thought it meant something different. Seriously- that is what some Democrats want you to believe qualifies as a lie.

In Kevin’s taxonomy of lies, he failed to mention the one that the Democrats are best at creating, which is the ‘lie that occurs because things change.’ For example, if Bush right now stated “It is around ten o’clock on Saturday morning,” on Monday, Ted Kennedy would call a press conference and say “George Bush said it was ‘ten o’clock on Saturday morning,’ while clearly it is Monday. George Bush is a liar.”

Presidents are often wrong, Presidents often change positions. That does not make them a liar. Unless, of course, they are Republicans.

Dwight Meredith, however, does pose a good question:

Bill Clinton was asked under oath “are you having an affair with Ms. Lewinski?” (that is a paraphrase but the tense is correct). He answered no.

Was that a lie? As a technical matter he was not having an affair at that moment, he was giving a deposition.

The law imposes a duty in certain circumstances not only to be technically accurate but also to disclose all material facts.

The failure to disclose all material facts when in a fiduciary relationship, for instance, constitutes fraud under the law.

Should our Presidents have the duty to disclose all material facts about public policy issues they choose to address?

I think that is an interesting question and I for one, am not prepared to give a definitive answer.

The fact of the matter is that in the current political climate, that is precisely what Democrats are demanding of Bush, while conveniently excluding themselves from the same standards. When Howard Dean LIES about his position regarding social security, it is a ‘flip-flop’ or a mistake. When Bush changes his mind or puts forward the best case for his policy (and remember, almost every policy proposal is at its heart subjective- we really can not predict outcomes with any degree of certainty- Matt Stinson has some good posts on this topic), he is called a liar.

Why the drive to call Bush a liar, to remake what is and is not a lie- November 2004, not because of some close personal relationship that Democrats have with captial T truth. Don’t play their game.

And while we are at it- you leftists can stop with the Bush/Hitler comparisons regarding ‘The Big Lie’ any day now. Grow up.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Misleading StatementsPost + Comments (42)