- Most people assume that all politicians shade the truth.
Most people are right. Seeking bipartisan symmetry, journalists pretend
that the exaggerations and misstatements split roughly down the middle,
with each party in our fallen world of Democrats and Republicans vending
pleasing fictions to supporters. The idea of "balance" makes
life easier for reporters two ways: allowing them to pose as morally superior
to quibbling politicians while shielding them from accusations of partisanship
-- particularly the dread "liberal bias."
-
- But what if, as Huck Finn might have said, it just ain't
so? What if one party addresses voters in ordinary politician-speak, while
the other abandons truth-telling altogether? Because that's what's happening
during the 2004 campaign. Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards apply standard
spin to their formulations for the nation's future, while their Republican
rivals have dragged political discourse to unprecedented depths of mendacity.
-
- Only weeks before the election, the Bush-Cheney campaign
resembles a gigantic lab experiment designed to measure exactly how poorly
informed and gullible the American people are. Journalists trying to act
as neutral observers are having a hard time figuring out how to deal with
it.
-
- During the vice-presidential debate, for example, Dick
Cheney accused John Edwards of being a no-show in the U.S. Senate. "I'm
up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session," Cheney said
dismissively. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on
the stage tonight."
-
- It was a palpable hit, the authoritative older man dismissing
his rival as a feckless puppy. Except it was also a shameless falsehood.
Cheney presided over the Senate exactly twice in four years. Within an
hour, photos of Cheney and Edwards together at a Washington prayer breakfast
were all over the Internet. Edwards had also escorted Sen. Liddy Dole,
R-N.C., to be sworn in by Cheney. The two men once appeared on the same
"Meet the Press" broadcast.
-
- So the press, which flayed Al Gore for getting the cost
of his dog's arthritis medication wrong in 2000, was all over Cheney, right?
Not quite. Many readers are probably learning about it here for the first
time. During post-debate commentary on MSNBC, Tim Russert actually praised
Cheney's putdown. Next day, he went on the "Today Show" to say
he'd introduced Cheney and Edwards on the "Meet the Press" set.
-
- Trivial, certainly. But also highly revelatory. Why wasn't
it a big deal? Two reasons: the VP debate got shunted aside in favor of
the upcoming presidential encounter, and the media hesitates to offend
vengeful Republicans, but doesn't fear Democrats.
-
- Less trifling was Cheney's brazen denial that he'd ever
claimed Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. That must have shocked
the 62 percent of Republicans who reportedly believe Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden were in cahoots. To his credit, Russert played video clips
of the vice president strongly insinuating Iraqi complicity in 9/11. But
the media hasn't exactly emphasized it. Hey, it's just another war lie.
No biggie.
-
- Then there's President Bush himself, who's setting records
for duplicity during this campaign. Yes, Kerry exaggerated when he said
the administration forced Gen. Eric Shinseki to retire for telling Congress
it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers to occupy Iraq. They actually
undercut him much earlier, when his advice was still private. That's how
you know Bush was fibbing when he said all the generals backed his excellent
invasion plan. Shinseki didn't.
-
- Did the National Journal call John Kerry the "most
liberal" U.S. senator? No, he finished 11th (Edwards 27th). Did Kerry
vote for higher taxes 350 times, as Bush TV ads state, or 98 times, as
Bush claimed in debate? Neither. Both figures are padded by up to 16 procedural
votes on the same bills.
-
- Did the Duelfer Report by Bush's own Iraqi arms inspector
conclude that U.N. inspections "weren't working," as he claimed?
No, it concluded Saddam had no WMDs after 1991, and no capacity to make
them.
-
- Are staggering budget deficits mainly caused, as Bush
asserted, by recession and war? No, most economists say Bush's tax cuts
account for between half and two-thirds of the shortfall.
-
- Has non-defense discretionary spending under Bush increased
by a mere 1 percent a year as he stated? No, the actual figure is 8 percent,
twice as fast as it rose under Clinton.
-
- Does Sen. Kerry's health insurance plan amount to a government
takeover of medical care, as Bush says? No, it would expand Medicaid to
children, but mostly strengthens employer-based private insurance.
-
- Has Kerry proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending, as
Bush claimed during their second debate? Bush exaggerates by a multiple
of roughly 13; independent estimates peg his own spending plans far higher
than Kerry's.
-
- Does Bush own a stake in a timber company, as Kerry claimed
and Bush laughingly denied? He does, although it's so small he probably
forgot.
-
- - Gene Lyons is a columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
-
- Copyright © 2004, The Decatur Daily Democrat. http://www.decaturdailydemocrat.com/articles/2004/10/18/news/opinion/editorial02.txt
|
