Lies and the lying liars who tell them
This weekend I took a lot of heat in an intended-to-be-friendly discussion about the Republican National Convention, when I said I was angered by multiple outright lies in Sarah Palin's convention speech. The counterargument was that all politicians stretch the truth, which of course they do, especially at a convention. But I draw a distinction between what I called spin, i.e., making your claims sound as positive as possible and your opponents as negative as possible even if that means leaving out key details that don't help your cause, and actual lies. Spin would be saying that John McCain supports and would continue George W. Bush's policies. Well, he supports some of them and probably would continue some of them, but you're leaving out the areas in which he has broken with the Bush administration. That's the kind of retail politicking that I am used to and have come to expect, but it's not the kind of lies that made me want to throw things during the RNC and subsequently.
To me, lies are things that you know are completely untrue but that you nevertheless state as fact. For example, Sarah Palin says Barack Obama wants to make sure the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are read their rights. This is completely false, as I discussed in my earlier post; nobody has ever argued that they should have been Mirandized prior to their incarceration. Then there are the lies of omission, like saying you opposed the Bridge to Nowhere and told Congress "thanks but no thanks," which leaves out the fact that originally you supported the bridge during your governor's race, and even after the project was cancelled due to public outcry, you kept the $223 million Congress had already given to Alaska and allocated it to other pork barrel projects.
The kind of lies that I saw in Sarah Palin's speech and that I've seen from the McCain campaign since go far beyond spin and far beyond accidental misstatements or foggy recollections. And apparently I'm not alone, since WaPo columnist E.J. Dionne (who I find to be one of the more credible and observant political pundits out there) has the same reaction to the outright lies coming from McCain's team. He joins Joe Klein of Time, who last month shook his head in disgust at the sleaze of the McCain campaign's challenging of Obama's patriotism. And today Josh Marshall makes the convincing case that a campaign based upon lies is a sign of a candidate unfit for the nation's highest office:
All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House.
It's important enough to fact check everything that comes out of your opposition, but when it crosses over from mere spin and half-truths to outright lies that are dangerous and repeated ad nauseum by both the campaign and its surrogates in the right wing press, we simply cannot let these things go unchallenged. And unfortunately we cannot rely on the press alone, as under siege as it has been recently, to right the ship and speak the truth.
If you think the lies Sarah Palin told in her speech aren't that big a deal and that I shouldn't be so up in arms about them, then perhaps you can tell me how you feel about this latest whopper: a commercial claiming that Barack Obama supported giving comprehensive sex education to five year olds.
Once again, John, I'm sorry I ever supported you and I want my $25 from 2000 back.
21 comments:
How do you know a politicians lying?
His/her lips are moving
Weak.
Cynical
Cynicism isn't a bad thing.
Not recognizing the distinction between the usual bullshit and the extra-stinky toxic bullshit can be.
Sara, I am a long time reader and I think you are 100% correct with this post. It's not just spin they are doing, they are outright LYING.
Oh, and have you seen this piece of information:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-opposed-bidens-legislation-to.html
When Palin says that Obama wants unlawful combatants at Gitmo to be "read their rights" she is alluding to the movement on the left to remove them from military courts and plalce them in civilian criminal courts, which Obama clearly supports.
Palin was making an allusion, not telling a lie.
BTW, if the combatants are given the same status as other defendants in those courts, they are clearly receiving the same rights as the other defendants, including Miranda and unlawful search and seizure. Or are we going to suspend hundreds of years of common law and precedent just for them?
How do I feel about the ad? It's accurate. The bill in question, Illinois SB699, only addresses sexual predators in one section. Here is the bill - http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session
Obama affirmed his position while addressing Planned Parenthood in 2007 and in 2008 said "“Sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is ‘age-appropriate,’ is ‘the right thing to do.”
Dale, seriously.
The legislation was intended to ensure each child in the public schools received age-appropriate education. It did not require that 5 year olds receive COMPREHENSIVE sex education. The only education that was given to kindergartners under this scheme was just enough to educate them to report any inappropriate sexual contact or advance from an adult.
To claim that Obama wants to "teach children about sex before teaching them to read" is false.
Alan Keyes already tried this against Obama and it didn't work then, either. Thankfully, the people of Illinois were smarter than that. I hope the rest of the country can figure out the distinction as well.
As for the Miranda issue, nobody has ever argued that Guantanamo prisoners should receive any form of legal relief because they were not Mirandized before taken into US custody or interrogated. So the statement by Palin was false. You have to draw a lot of inferences and analogies to get where you're trying to go, and even then I don't think you get there. Sorry.
SB699 is explicitly a sex education bill for K-12. Obama voted for it and later defended his vote. Obama voted for sex education for kindergarten students. By any real definition of the word, that is not a lie. I could get a summary judgement in my favor on this one.
Has the McCain campaign said the kiddies were to get comprehensive sex ed? No, they have stted the facts of the bill. That is not a lie, no matter how badly you wish it to be.
The intention of the bill was to permit sex education for K-12 in an age appropriate manner and we all know how legislation is always executed in the intended manner, right? That said, the "intention" of the bill does not matter, the "language" of the bill does. Just ask people about the property siezures from zero tolerance drug laws ot the 8th grader on the terrorist watch list.
People are understandably sqeamish about our schools determining what is "age appropriate".
Based on job applications I receive, we are already teaching kids about sex before they can read. :-)
Alan Keyes is a wing nut who couldn't convince someone the sky is blue, which is why he lost to Obama.
No one has to argue that they have Miranda protections because they are already in the case law. That would be like saying no one has argued that night has to be dark, it is the nature of the night to be dark. You know that the full protection of US legislation and common law precedent would be available to aome, if not all, of the Gitmo prisoners. You also know that it would take the ACLU about 5 seconds to make that argument in court.
Many have argued they should be released because they are improperly imprisoned, what makes you think a Miranda challenge would not be made along with every other legal maneuver available in he courts?
With your idea of "truth", I have to ask if you are in criminal defense or a lobbyist? haha
Nobody has ever argued that the Guantanamo detainees were not read their rights before detention and thus should have been released.
Do you deny that simple statement? Do you deny that Obama has never said that he thinks they should have been read their rights? Do you deny that you are lumping him in with liberals in general, and then analogizing what they want in terms of basic procedural safeguards to include Miranda warnings even though that has never been argued?
Maybe you should read the briefs and opinions in cases like Hamdan and Boumedienne before deciding you know whether Miranda violations were argued in either Supreme Court case. I've read both decision, and there is no Miranda argument in either one. Even if it had been, Obama himself has never taken the public position that Miranda warnings are necessary or appropriate for people captured on foreign soil in combat. Never. So spare me the tortured analogies where you try to make a bad argument work.
Perhaps while you're at it you should actually watch McCain's ad about the sex ed bill before claiming his campaign never said comprehensive sex ed. Let's look at the transcript, shall we?
"Obama's one accomplishment: Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family."
Obama never supported COMPREHENSIVE sex education for kindergartners. There is a dramatic difference between complete education about the function of sexual organs, intercourse, pregnancy, STDs, and birth control--what "comprehensive education" means--and teaching 5 year old kids that if someone wants to touch you in certain places, you should tell a parent. The latter is age-appropriate, and is NOT comprehensive. The ad is wrong on this point. And the latter, by the way, is what is actually happening in Illinois so apparently the schools were shockingly able to figure out that complicated language of the law after all.
One last thing...it's really a shame you feel the need to make personal attacks against someone you don't even know for no discernible reason other than because you can. Well, if you do it again I'm turning on comment moderation and deleting yours. So cut it out.
Luck you, "DaleC" came over from Creative Loafing. He was a real prince during the Gower debacle, too.
FAILstamp.
I will not agree with your absolute statement that no one has made that argument because it is unknowable. My point is that once these cases are brought to civilian courts any and all arguments are up for grabs.
I never said Miranda was argued before the Supremes for Gitmo detainees, did I?
If I am not mistaken, the cases you cite were not tried in civilian courts before they were argued before the Supreme Court, therefore Miranda was not a grounds for appeal because it is not used in military courts. The Supremes can affirm or reverse a lower court ruling, so, if Miranda was not a part of the lower court rulings, they do not address it. If I am not correct, on that I would like to know.
If Miranda is not used in military courts, it would be foolish to make that argument in an appeal before the Supremes of a military court ruling. Is Miranda required in military cases? I don't know.
You are right, I was mistaken about the McCain ad. Perhaps they called it comprehensive sex ed because that is what the bill says. Since you recommend reading cases and transcripts, perhaps you should read the bill in question. I only had to read to Lines 8 for
"8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection'
and Line 13 for " Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS."
Yet you claim this is not about comprehensive sex ed for K-12?
Here is the link to the text of the billhttp://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB0099lv.pdf
I know the argument about "age appropriate" education, but the bill clearly permits comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners.
Facts can be a drag sometimes.
BTW, I only comment here because I like your blog and think you raise good points sometimes. I only converse with writers I respect like Andisheh, Thomas Wheatley, Ken Edelstein and a few others.
I will now disagree with your absolute statement about Miranda. Salim Hamdan's defense attorney argued that the Fifth Amendment, and others, does apply to the case.
Scroll to the bottom of this page under the "Fig Newton" header
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/gitmo/
Also, military prosecutors are required to warn a suspect against self-incrimination, although they are not required to stick to the Miranda script made famous by cop shows.
Amber only thinks that I am a "prince" because I don't think criminals should be allowed to commit their crimes on my doorstep while I am told to accept their behavior because of their underprivileged backgrounds.
I know that is totally unreasonable of me.
The question is whether Obama has ever advocated the position that Gitmo detainees should have been Mirandized. I know Obama hasn't, but you tried to lump him in with those liberals who are fighting the legal battles over what procedural safeguards are important. Palin said Obama believes detainees should be Mirandized, and it's simply NOT TRUE. Nothing you've said has countered that. Feel free to try again, though.
I'm going to ignore your paragraph about civilian courts because it doesn't make sense.
The bill does not "permit comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners" because elsewhere in the same bill it specifies that only age appropriate education should be provided, and comprehensive sex ed is not age appropriate. That's why it's a silly argument at best, and outright lying at worst to claim that Obama wanted to require comprehensive sex ed of kindergartners. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that five year olds be taught about ejaculation or menstruation, and to suggest that Obama (or anyone else who saupported the legislation) honestly wanted that to occur is just plain silly. Or fearmongering, take your pick.
*beating my head against the wall*
Read the Fifth Amendment, Dale. It deals with a lot more than just warnings against self-incrimination. Hamdan's lawyer was arguing the due process part and probably several other portions of the Fifth, not the Miranda warnings.
Obama has ever said he believes detainees should have been Mirandized. Nothing you said has changed that.
Can you please go find something else to do for the rest of the night? Please?
I did not mean to give a treatise on the Fifth Amendment and I know exactly what it says, as does Hamdans lawyer.
I never said Obama made that statement, only that Palin alluded to his desire to try them in civilian courts and the position of others on the Left, of which he is a true blue member, to extend Miranda and other constitutional protections to Gitmo detainees. I even provided a link to support my statement.
Since you don't seem to understand that Palin was using an allusion... that you said no one has argued Miranda and, after being shown to be wrong, you changed the argument to Obama saying that....since you clearly did not read Hamdans defense attorneys argument and the writers comments on the human rights blog to which I linked... I will go find something else to do because your mind is clearly closed to this topic. I even asked for education on points of law, which you did not address, probably because they undermine your position.
If you want your blog to be an echo chamber, you should probably post that policy somewhere. When you publish your opinions and defend them as fact, you open yourself to scrutiny and blogging is no place for the thin skinned.
BTW, I am still waiting for an explanation of my "personal attacks" on people I do not know. I don't expect I will get that either.
If I wanted the blog to be an echo chamber, I wouldn't be arguing with you or publishing your comments, now would I?
Sarah Palin said Obama wants enemy combatants to be read their rights. Obama has never advocated this position. I argued this in my original post to which you first responded in comment. Nothing you have said to this point has contradicted that Obama has never personally advocated for Mirandizing enemy combatant detainees. Palin's language on this point was pretty clear in stating that this was Obama's position on the issue of the legal rights of detainees. It is not. You can call it an allusion if that makes you feel better about her stating something untrue as fact, and you can lump him in with all liberals and their various arguments if you want, but my point is and has always been that he does not advocate Mirandizing detainees. Those arguing that the Military Tribunals legislation is unconstitutional and does not provide adequate procedural safeguards are also not attacking the sufficiency of Miranda warnings--their issues all relate to whether the detainees have a way to challenge their detention that comports with the constitution. So even if you lump Obama in with all of them and vice versa, this is still not his position.
Yes, I get that Palin was trying to make Obama's position seem silly. She just happens to have made a false statement in order to achieve her purpose. I don't know why you can't find it in you to concede this very simple point.
If there is anything that I did not address or did not go read, it is because I have better and more pressing things to do with my time than to continue this argument. I am at work and will be for several hours and I can't spend my entire day and night reading everything you want me to or responding to everything you think I should.
Your personal attack was on me, who you do not know, when you insulted my profession and my professionalism with your crack about me being a lobbyist or a criminal defense attorney. I am neither, and it was a cheap shot at at a stranger and at a profession that I work very hard at and take very seriously. I have shown you the respect of replying to your comments without calling you names or making presumptions about you. I demand the same of the people who I engage in any sort of debate with. And if I don't get that respect, then you are correct that I will not continue the conversation.
I'm going to go do some real work now and probably won't be where I can approve any more comments for the rest of the night, so you really should go find something else to do now.
Fair enough. You see her remark as a factual statement of policy and I see it as a humorous allusion to people who want to close Gitmo and give these guys all the rights of US citizens. We will agree to disagree.
You have conceeded nothing, despite my presenting verifiable facts to you, so why should I when we are discussing opinions.
My offending comment - With your idea of "truth", I have to ask if you are in criminal defense or a lobbyist? haha
haha means I am kidding, joking, so lighten up a little
Since you are neither, why would you be offended? Are you saying that lobbyists and defense attorneys don't have unusual interpretations of facts? :-)
I am finding something else to do... I am leaving for Destin
I have enjoyed the debate and did not mean to offend. I hope we can do it again, but more productively and enjoyably for both of us.
Hey, I just got here. Did I miss anything?
Palin is indefensibly vapid. Inferring strategy, wisdom and experience into her scripted public statements is intellectually dishonest.
We can argue over her tone, disagree about her personal views, and speculate on the swirl of scandals surrounding her - and completely miss the point: she is obviously unqualified and probably not very bright.
Post a Comment