How can politicians lie so much?

[David_B]

“Hmmm. I can tell the truth and lose, or lie through my teeth and win…”

[tracer]

CalifBoomer wrote:

Personal ethics. A moral sense of right and wrong based on a higher standard. To many of us, that higher standard is God. This philosophy was intrinsic to the founding of this country, but has been cast aside as irrelevent. We are now reaping the results of this folly.

The Christian Nation Myth: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

[tracer]

And here’s another page chock-full of Religious Right myths about the Founding Fathers (and why these myths are wrong), which I just re-discovered after an exhausting search: http://thomasash.hypermart.net/bnet/items/00025.html

[John_Corrado]

And don’t forget the story of the two guys trying to outrun a bear in the woods; “Why are you putting on running shoes? They won’t help you outrun the bear!” “I don’t have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you.”

So W can tell a few lies because even if he gets caught, how bad can he look when compared to Clinton? And with the Republican propaganda machine gearing up to paint Gore as the biggest fraud/liar/hypocrite this side of Clinton, well, what’s a few white lies by Bush?

Second, keep in mind that very rarely does a politician tell an absolute lie; there are facts and items which, when presented in the correct light, support the statement. I doubt very much that W did much for the environment while governor; but when he makes claims to be an environmentalist, he still has some small deeds or acts which he can offer up.
In the end, I don’t think it’s as much “they can get away with it” as “they need to get away with it.” The average voter doesn’t want to believe that they need to suffer in any way, shape, or form in order to maintain the rosy life-style they have. So anyone who brings a different message- that pain and suffering will be necessary in the years ahead (ala Mondale, Tsongas, Kerrey, etc.)- will be avoided in favor of candidates who say that all’s well and we can have our cake and eat it too (ala Reagan and Clinton). So they lie, and they carefully select facts to make it look like they at least thought they were telling the truth at the time, and they hope that the public just doesn’t pay enough attention to the situation, and in general the public doesn’t.

---

JMCJ

“Y’know, I would invite y’all to go feltch a dead goat, but that would be abuse of a perfectly good dead goat and an insult to all those who engage in that practice for fun.” -weirddave, set to maximum flame

[system]

Making faces at the Rottweiler through the screen door:

originally posted by DavidB:
BUT, as you might know, Houston last year surpassed L.A. as the smoggiest city in the U.S.

from Snopes, Inboxer Rebellion, Moral Outrage, yellow “undetermined” status: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/bush2.htm (bolding mine )

This is frightening! Yet another argument for why we HAVE TO VOTE!
The state of Texas, under the leadership of Governor George W. Bush, is ranked:
50th in spending for teachers’ salaries
**49th in spending on the environment **
48th in per-capita funding for public health
47th in delivery of social services
42nd in child-support collections
41st in per-capita spending on public education
and…
5th in percentage of population living in poverty
**1st in air and water pollution **
1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance
1st in percentage of children without health insurance
1st in executions (avg. 1 every 2 weeks for Bush’s 5 years)
Just think of what he could do for the country if he were president . . .

.
.
.
.
Down, boy! Down!

Sorry about the screen door, Gaudere, I’ll pay for it, of course…

---

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

[David_B]

Um, I’m not sure what your point is, I guess. Yes, that list is “undetermined,” but that says nothing about each individual part of the list. For example, how do you determine if the whole state is “first” in air pollution? I don’t know. But I do know that Houston passed L.A. as the smoggiest city in the U.S. So, again, what was your point?

[system]

“Now we know where you get your facts.”

---

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

[system]

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

[pldennison]

To throw a wrench into this debate: Can a statement or promise that a candidate has every intention of honoring and keeping, only to later find out that some circumstance, be it functional, formal or other, prevents him from doing so, be honestly characterized as a “lie”?

[David_B]

Notthemama: Smiley or not, that is not where I get my facts. Again, I don’t see the point of why you brought it up.

Phil: I’ve thought about this before. For example, W’s father said, “No new taxes” and then signed new taxes. When he said it, he may have meant it. If he meant it, it wasn’t, IMO, a lie. If he was saying it just to get elected, it was a lie. Seeing as we can’t read minds, we’ll never know.

W’s statements that he is an environmentalist, however, are lies because they are not forward-looking, but backwards (in more ways than one). Amusingly, I read a little news tidbit in U.S. News & World Report about environmentalists. It said they would rather have Nader than Gore in a perfect world, but recognizing it ain’t a perfect world, they will probably support Gore. Indeed, some groups apparently plan to run TV ads talking about Bush’s anti-environmentalism. Bush supporters were saying this was unfair. Unfair? How? It’s unfair to point to his own record? I don’t get it…