Obama buried by McCain/Palin "blizzard of lies"
Paul Krugman is dismayed at the McCain/Palin campaign's "Blizzard of Lies:"
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks" when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?These stories have two things in common: they're all claims recently made by the McCain campaign -- and they're all out-and-out lies. [...]
I can't think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign's lies in 2000 were artful -- you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.
McCain's "Double-Talk Express" has veered off the honesty highway numerous times, and often seems to spend more time off the road than on it. The media, however, studiously avoid his erratic path, and are barely able to muster an occasional noncommittal remark about the two campaigns' differing views on what constitutes responsible driving habits.
Fuck that.
The media must start calling McCain's lies for what they are: cynical attempts to manipulate an electorate into making this another cult-of-personality election. If they fail to do so, we as citizens must do it for them. As Anonymous Liberal writes:
John McCain is on the verge of doing one of two things: he's either about to implode under the weight of his own lies, or he's on the verge of proving, definitively, that there is no political downside to telling an endless stream of bald-faced lies. Sadly, I'm beginning to suspect the latter. [...]The most basic function of the political press is to inform the people and to hold politicians accountable. When blatant lying carries no political downside, that means the press is serving as a conduit for disinformation and, by definition, not holding politicians accountable for their statements. And if that's the case, if all that modern news coverage succeeds in doing is amplifying and rewarding dishonestly, then democracy is actually better off without any coverage at all.
This election is a test of the political media in this country. If journalists can't find a way to dissuade the use of flagrant dishonesty as a tactic, they will have failed this country miserably.
Hmm...where have I heard the term "miserable failure" before?
links:
"McCain and Palin's Top 20 Lies, Myths, and Flip-Flops" (AlterNet)
"John McCain's 42 Flip-Flops" (Think Progress)
Comments
"Insidious" is the perfect descriptor, because respect for truth is the foundation of civilized behavior. At the very least, disregard for facts debases the political process: instead of talking about policies and programs and philosophies of governance, we're forced to double-check every assertion for fear of being led astray, or of being complicit in spreading misinformation.
Posted by: cognitivedissident
|
September 14, 2008 11:11 PM
I am also wary of making the comparison. But I don't mind pointing out the methodology when it is being blatantly used. It has been the m.o. now for almost a decade.
It is the methodology of lying that is insidious.
It really has nothing to do with a particular political party. It has to do with manipulating people.
I had always been curious and awestruck by how all those people had been conived to their deaths. I studied to discover the 'how' it had happened.
Being lied to as a methodology was part of a calculated 'plan'. It was no accident or oversight.
I included the context of that quote, because so often it's just the first line that is used, and it's in its setting that fully reveals the quotes horrid nature.
Posted by: leslie | September 14, 2008 10:26 PM
I’m wary of drawing parallels between the Right in this country and the ultra-right Nazis…I just wish that they wouldn’t—by their own words and deeds—make such comparisons so frighteningly appropriate.
We need to remember, though, that the mundane lies about earmarks and bridges and lipstick and tax cuts are a means to an end: they want to use the failures of conservatism to demonize liberalism by arguing—in effect—that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I and II weren’t conservative enough.
If they can shift the blame for their failures onto our philosophy, things will only get worse.
Much worse.
Posted by: cognitivedissident
|
September 14, 2008 4:19 PM
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.
Posted by: leslie | September 14, 2008 11:42 AM