My esteemed Keloland colleague, David Newquist, reminds us once again of the mendacity of the McCain campaign.
In the election campaign of 2008, we have what columnist Paul Krugman has termed "a blizzard of lies." Numerous stories in The New York Times, The Columbia Journalism Review, and other newspapers and magazines have noted that despite the many stories from fact checkers that assertions by the McCain campaign are proven to be untrue, the campaign just keeps making them.
David frequently relies on FactCheck.Org to make his points. See this post at his home blog.
Now I don't exactly disagree with my colleague on this matter. It might be unrealistic to expect politicians to tell us the truth when what we really demand, and pay for, is that they tell us what we want to hear. Democracy is when you get the government you deserve. But even if we demand lies, we might at least want to know when they are telling us lies.
David doesn't seem to notice that FactCheck.Org also monitors the Obama campaign. Ruth Marcus gives us an example of what journalistic integrity looks like.
The symmetry of sin is suddenly looking more equal. Last week, I flayed John McCain for dishonesty -- flagrant and repeated dishonesty -- about Barack Obama's proposals. Obama was by no means blameless, I argued, but his lapses were nowhere near as egregious as his opponent's. I stand by everything I wrote.
But a series of new Obama attacks requires a rebalancing of the scales: Obama has descended to similarly scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air.
Now I think that the mendacity of the Obama campaign was evident in many ways all along. When Obama tore apart NAFTA on the stump, while dispatching an advisor to assure the Canadians that it was all for show, that was deliberate deceit. But recently, no doubt spurred by his temporary dip in the polls, Obama has moused all scruple into recycle bin.
On immigration, Obama is running a Spanish-language ad that unfairly lumps McCain together with Rush Limbaugh -- and quotes Limbaugh out of context. On health care, Obama misleadingly accuses McCain of wanting to impose a $3.6 trillion tax hike on employer-provided insurance.
Obama has been furthest out of line, however, on Social Security, stooping to the kind of scare tactics he once derided.
"If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week," Obama said Saturday as he campaigned in that retiree-heavy state. "Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves."
This is simply false -- even leaving aside the incendiary language about "privatizing" Social Security. As the invaluable FactCheck.org noted, the private account plan suggested by President Bush and backed by McCain would not have applied to anyone born before 1950. It would not have changed benefits by a single penny for current retirees like the nice Florida folks that Obama was trying to rile up. The sensible notion was that workers at or near retirement age should be able to rely on promised benefits and should not be subject to the vicissitudes of short-term market fluctuations.
And then there is this:
Obama's ads on Social Security are equally misleading. "Cutting benefits in half, risking Social Security on the stock market," it warns. "The Bush-McCain privatization plan. Can you really afford more of the same?"
Cutting benefits in half? As FactCheck notes, "this is a rank misrepresentation." No one at or near retirement age would have been affected. Those retiring in the future would not have received benefits as big as what they have been promised under current law -- but those promises cannot be paid for under the current system or even through the payroll tax increase on the wealthy that Obama has proposed.
So FactCheck, FactCheck, Dave! says that Obama's ads are a "rank misrepresentation." So explain this to me: do we have two big brothers, peddling their 1984 newspeak?
Well, maybe. But two Orwellian Big Brother's, working their techno-totalitarianism against each other, with the voters getting to decide who gets to run the telescreens for the next four years. At the risk of disagreeing with an English professor about a famous novel, that ain't exactly what Orwell had in mind.
Maybe we should demand that our presidential candidates be scrupulously honest. We ain't gonna, for reasons I have mentioned, but maybe we should. And maybe McCain has been plenty dishonest in some of his ads. But if anyone votes for Obama because he or she thinks Obama is honest, that person is a fool.
Recent Comments