Jim Stillman
Nevar
Puffery, slanting or intentional lies – through a political prism.
September 9th 2008 21:16
Last night I was watching and listening to Barack Obama on MSNBC’s Countdown and suddenly realized a reason why the Democrats may well lose the election. The issue under discussion was the Republican political advertisements that presented total and absolute untruths; Senator Obama, even after prompting, seemed reluctant to label the false statements “lies”; instead he repeatedly said that he was “bothered” but that he had faith in the American public to see through the false statements and the result would be a backlash against the GOP.
There is an excellent post on Blogging in America, lucid and exceedingly well written and exhaustively researched, on the 2004 United States presidential race, the “Swiftboat” slandering of John Kerry which, although dismissed as untrue by impartial observers, remained a very real reason why George Bush was elected.
Really Long Link
In discussing false political advertisements, I believe it important to distinguish the kind of advertisement that is slanted in favor of a candidate (or the converse, slanted against an opponent), an advertisement that is mere “puffing”, and outright lies.
An advertisement that is “slanted” under my definition is one which picks and chooses actual facts to leave an impression. For example, Governor Palin asserts that she opposed the “Bridge to Nowhere” of Ted Stevens or that she opposed special federal “earmarks” to benefit a locality. In fact, she, previously, vigorously supported Senator Stevens’ bridge; she also was an expert in gleaning federal dollars for her city and state.
That radical left publication, The Wall Street Journal, reported yesterday:
Governor Palin was equally effective in obtaining federal largess for her city and state!
Another recent article in the Washington Post related,
As a matter of fact, Alaska received more in federal money per capita than any other state!
The first example that of the “Bridge to Nowhere” is best countered by vigorous counter advertisements by the Democrats. Literally the facts presented are true but misleading.
The second set of facts presented by the GOP are simply untrue, but there again, the assertions can be and should be refuted by the Democrats.
In advertising, political or commercial, an amount of hyperbole is accepted. When the “product” is the candidacy of an individual or party, greater leeway is given, mostly because there is an opposition party ready and able to counter the exaggeration with the truth. It is in this area that Senator Obama and his people are failing. They have taken the position that the American public will recognize the flaws in the GOP positions without prompting. John Kerry made the same mistake. A lie should be promptly labeled as such.
Some of the most bizarre and vicious suggestions about Senator Obama have appeared in the plethora of email messages circulated widely. It is difficult, if not impossible, to counter all of these, although the Snopes website does a reasonable good job.
There have been a substantial number of statements made by GOP spokespeople that can only be described as, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire”.
In a speech at the GOP convention, Mike Huckabee said that Governor Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
No. In her two elections as Mayor of Wasilla, she had an aggregate total of 1650 votes; Joe Biden, before he dropped out of the presidential race, garnered some 2500 votes.
Next, The subject line of an email from the Republican Party of Florida was designed to grab attention: “Fidel Castro endorses Obama.”
Inside is a doctored (i.e., fake) image of Castro holding a poster of Obama. Above Castro are the words, “I love this guy!”
A link in the e-mail sends you to an article that states that Castro gave Obama “a qualified endorsement,” calling him “the most advanced candidate” in a commentary published in a Communist newspaper on May 26, 2008.
No, again. In the article, Castro actually spends most of his words criticizing a speech Obama made to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami just a few days before, on May 23. In that speech, Obama pledged that if elected, he would immediately allow unlimited family travel to Cuba and family members to send money to relatives in Cuba. Obama reiterated his position that he would meet with the leaders of enemy nations without preconditions. But the thing that really raised Castro’s ire was Obama’s vow to maintain the embargo as “leverage” to encourage Cuba to “take significant steps towards democracy.”
However, when one is courting the Cuban-American voters of South Florida, the facts never catch up with the slander.
Back to Mike Huckabee who, on October 21, 2007, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were "brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen." Not even close! Of the 56 signers of the Declaration, only one was a clergyman, John Witherspoon, then president of what would become Princeton.
All of this historical stuff is fun to read but the serious problem is that the Democrats have not called the GOP to task. Senator Obama and his supporters have been relatively quiet, in the belief that the b.s. will be identified as such and dismissed.
That would be a big mistake; as proof I offer the fact that it is not President Kerry who had been in the White House.
The other issue on which I would invite comments is the fact that Senator McCain spends nearly all of his advertising dollars and speeches attacking the Democrats. I would much prefer speeches and position papers on specific plans he has for the future. Senator Obama’s campaign seems to be made up of “wonks” that are not willing to wrestle in the mud. On one viewpoint, that’s admirable; from another, it may be short sighted.
There is an excellent post on Blogging in America, lucid and exceedingly well written and exhaustively researched, on the 2004 United States presidential race, the “Swiftboat” slandering of John Kerry which, although dismissed as untrue by impartial observers, remained a very real reason why George Bush was elected.
Really Long Link
In discussing false political advertisements, I believe it important to distinguish the kind of advertisement that is slanted in favor of a candidate (or the converse, slanted against an opponent), an advertisement that is mere “puffing”, and outright lies.
An advertisement that is “slanted” under my definition is one which picks and chooses actual facts to leave an impression. For example, Governor Palin asserts that she opposed the “Bridge to Nowhere” of Ted Stevens or that she opposed special federal “earmarks” to benefit a locality. In fact, she, previously, vigorously supported Senator Stevens’ bridge; she also was an expert in gleaning federal dollars for her city and state.
That radical left publication, The Wall Street Journal, reported yesterday:
The Bridge to Nowhere argument isn't going much of anywhere.
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.
The McCain campaign released a television advertisement Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries. But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.
The McCain campaign released a television advertisement Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries. But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
Governor Palin was equally effective in obtaining federal largess for her city and state!
Another recent article in the Washington Post related,
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.
There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.
There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.
As a matter of fact, Alaska received more in federal money per capita than any other state!
The first example that of the “Bridge to Nowhere” is best countered by vigorous counter advertisements by the Democrats. Literally the facts presented are true but misleading.
The second set of facts presented by the GOP are simply untrue, but there again, the assertions can be and should be refuted by the Democrats.
In advertising, political or commercial, an amount of hyperbole is accepted. When the “product” is the candidacy of an individual or party, greater leeway is given, mostly because there is an opposition party ready and able to counter the exaggeration with the truth. It is in this area that Senator Obama and his people are failing. They have taken the position that the American public will recognize the flaws in the GOP positions without prompting. John Kerry made the same mistake. A lie should be promptly labeled as such.
Some of the most bizarre and vicious suggestions about Senator Obama have appeared in the plethora of email messages circulated widely. It is difficult, if not impossible, to counter all of these, although the Snopes website does a reasonable good job.
There have been a substantial number of statements made by GOP spokespeople that can only be described as, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire”.
In a speech at the GOP convention, Mike Huckabee said that Governor Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
No. In her two elections as Mayor of Wasilla, she had an aggregate total of 1650 votes; Joe Biden, before he dropped out of the presidential race, garnered some 2500 votes.
Next, The subject line of an email from the Republican Party of Florida was designed to grab attention: “Fidel Castro endorses Obama.”
Inside is a doctored (i.e., fake) image of Castro holding a poster of Obama. Above Castro are the words, “I love this guy!”
A link in the e-mail sends you to an article that states that Castro gave Obama “a qualified endorsement,” calling him “the most advanced candidate” in a commentary published in a Communist newspaper on May 26, 2008.
No, again. In the article, Castro actually spends most of his words criticizing a speech Obama made to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami just a few days before, on May 23. In that speech, Obama pledged that if elected, he would immediately allow unlimited family travel to Cuba and family members to send money to relatives in Cuba. Obama reiterated his position that he would meet with the leaders of enemy nations without preconditions. But the thing that really raised Castro’s ire was Obama’s vow to maintain the embargo as “leverage” to encourage Cuba to “take significant steps towards democracy.”
However, when one is courting the Cuban-American voters of South Florida, the facts never catch up with the slander.
Back to Mike Huckabee who, on October 21, 2007, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were "brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen." Not even close! Of the 56 signers of the Declaration, only one was a clergyman, John Witherspoon, then president of what would become Princeton.
All of this historical stuff is fun to read but the serious problem is that the Democrats have not called the GOP to task. Senator Obama and his supporters have been relatively quiet, in the belief that the b.s. will be identified as such and dismissed.
That would be a big mistake; as proof I offer the fact that it is not President Kerry who had been in the White House.
The other issue on which I would invite comments is the fact that Senator McCain spends nearly all of his advertising dollars and speeches attacking the Democrats. I would much prefer speeches and position papers on specific plans he has for the future. Senator Obama’s campaign seems to be made up of “wonks” that are not willing to wrestle in the mud. On one viewpoint, that’s admirable; from another, it may be short sighted.
| 68 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Really Long Link