# IOKIADDI (It's OK If A Democrat Does It)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2013, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622 "2013-08-19T08:47:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/101 "2013-08-20T17:04:57Z")
This [recent story](http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/chatteor_that_prompts_closing.html)… > [@](#): > > U.S. diplomatic posts in 19 cities in the Muslim world will be closed at least through the end of this week, the State Department said Sunday, citing “an abundance of caution.” > > Sen. Saxby Chambliss said “the chatter” intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies led the Obama administration to shutter the embassies and consulates and issue a global travel warning to Americans. > > “Chatter means conversation among terrorists about the planning that’s going on – very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11,” Chambliss, R-Ga., told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” …reminded me of the press asking Bush about his response to those pre-9/11 threats. Boy, they really had some pointed questions! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/102 "2013-08-20T17:08:51Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Not really. It was a big local story but the national media didn’t really dig in until about a week later. You’re right that it became a bigger story as it went on, of course, because half a dozen or a dozen women is going to be a bigger story. Filner’s absurd ‘rehab’ plan made it that much worse. But would you mind giving some more details here? What kind of coverage isn’t “really digging in?” > [@](#): > > As I previously pointed out, the reporter who wrote the mea culpa states that reporters were aware of the “incessant” rumors floating around about Filner but didn’t bother to investigate. Yes, the columnist says there were rumors. You said the press knew what he was up to. I don’t think you’re going to acknowledge the difference, but those are not remotely the same thing. Not all rumors are true. That’s sort of an important distinction in journalism. That’s not to say they couldn’t have found out, but it’s also not a sure thing and you didn’t characterize the situation accurately. Saying they failed to look into the rumors is not the same as saying they knew it was true and didn’t report it. And how this guy knows what everyone else knew is beyond me. Curlee can comment on his own failures as a reporter, and I’m not sure how he knows everybody else blew off the story. > [@](#): > > My original point, which I see is incorrect, was that Spitzer would have been outed by the federal investigation and the Times broke the story before that happened. Reading further it does not appear that the clients were going to be outed and, certainly, none were charged. Exactly. So just to make it clear, this was a story that was very harmful to a Democratic politician that was broken by a mainstream news outlet. > [@](#): > > That being said the results were the same for Spitzer and Vitter. Both took a pounding in the media. Why is Vitter still in office while Spitzer resigned? I don’t know other than Vitter got out ahead of the story and, maybe, it says something about the electorate of Louisiana. That’s probably attributable to individual factors: Spitzer was struggling as governor and had wasted a lot of the support he had when he came into office, and Vitter had supporters who were behind him no matter what. And perhaps Spitzer could’ve been impeached, which wasn’t going to happen to Vitter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/103 "2013-08-20T17:14:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, the columnist says there were rumors. You said the press knew what he was up to. I don’t think you’re going to acknowledge the difference, but those are not remotely the same thing. Not all rumors are true. That’s sort of an important distinction in journalism. That’s not to say they couldn’t have found out, but it’s also not a sure thing and you didn’t characterize the situation accurately. Saying they failed to look into the rumors is not the same as saying they knew it was true and didn’t report it. But this is kinda what I was talking about. I’m suggesting that the press applies a slightly different standard – rumors about a Democrat need some solid evidence before reporting them, even as rumors; rumors about a Republican need less solid evidence before reporting them. This formula is reversed by the Washington Times and Fox News – they won’t ignore a Republican scandal when it’s obvious, but they’re more willing to let mere rumors alone… but if those rumors surrounded a Democrat, the threshold to print/investigate gets lower. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/104 "2013-08-20T17:15:56Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I wouldn’t go nearly that far in characterizing Benghazi but I do think it would have gotten a lot more play, and reporters would have been at least a little intellectually curious, if it happened under a Republican administration. Whereas I would argue that there was never much of anything to the talking points story OR the IRS story, and the press helped the Republicans beat the scandal drum for weeks on end by repeating the allegations until the stories petered out. And of course it went without saying the accusations got a lot more coverage than the conclusion that not that much was going on in either case. > [@Bricker](#): > > But this is kinda what I was talking about. I’m suggesting that the press applies a slightly different standard – rumors about a Democrat need some solid evidence before reporting them, even as rumors; rumors about a Republican need less solid evidence before reporting them. I don’t agree. I’m not sure how well individual examples can confirm or debunk this kind of thing, but there have been several counterexamples posted here. And then there’s the whole Obama birth certificate matter: the press covered the hell out of it, and in the process the number of people who believed the president was a foreigner kept going up. If there was a standard for confirming that rumor, is sure wasn’t applied there. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/105 "2013-08-20T17:25:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But this is kinda what I was talking about. I’m suggesting that the press applies a slightly different standard – rumors about a Democrat need some solid evidence before reporting them, even as rumors; rumors about a Republican need less solid evidence before reporting them. > > This formula is reversed by the Washington Times and Fox News – they won’t ignore a Republican scandal when it’s obvious, but they’re more willing to let mere rumors alone… but if those rumors surrounded a Democrat, the threshold to print/investigate gets lower. The difference is that the so-called “liberal press” will move on from even a Republican scandal when it dies down or turns out not to have any substance, but Fox and their ilk will hang onto a story about Democrats like their lives depended on it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/106 "2013-08-20T17:29:26Z")
From Bernard Goldberg’s book _Bias_: > [@](#): > > [Dan] Rather doesn’t believe there is a liberal bias in the news. That’s why he went on Tom Snyder’s late-night TV show on February 8,1995, and said, “It’s one of the great political myths, about press bias. Most reporters don’t know whether they’re Republican or Democrat, and vote every which way.” > > When Dan says something as breathtakingly goofy as that you have to wonder - is the boy just toying with us or does he really believe it? “Most reporters don’t know if they’re Republican or Democrat”? On what planet, Dan, would that be? “… and vote every which way”? I don’t think so. They vote over-whelmingly Democratic. Could Dan Rather really be the only person in the entire United States of America who doesn’t know this? > > Most reporters, though, aren’t as defensive as Dan. They take a more seductive position. Even if we are liberal, they say, so what? As long as we keep our biases out of the stories we cover, what’s the difference how we feel about abortion or gun control or anything else? > > They’re right. Completely and totally 100 percent right. And perhaps on Planet Bizarro in some parallel universe their personal views about life and the world really wouldn’t matter. But they do here on Earth, because, even though some would take issue, reporters and editors really are only human, which means they bring all their biases and life experiences to their stories. And it shows. > > Look at it this way: Imagine that almost all of the people who bring you the news on CBS and NBC and ABC voted for Richard Nixon over George McGovern, instead of the other way around. Imagine that they favored Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale. Now imagine that the media elites are mostly against affirmative action and mostly for the death penalty. Pretend that most network journalists are for prayer in the public schools and against a woman’s right to have an abortion. Now make believe that they broadcast the news each night, not from Manhattan, the most liberal enclave in America (except maybe for Hollywood and a few college towns), but from Omaha, Nebraska. Imagine, too, that their neighbors are not highly paid, sophisticated New Yorkers who, like the media elites, send their children to expensive private schools in Manhattan with the overwhelmingly white sons and daughters of other wealthy, sophisticated New Yorkers - even as they bemoan how segregated by race and class America remains. > > Imagine instead that they send their kids to the Omaha public schools, where their children sit next to mostly middle-class boys and girls whose parents aren’t big shots in the world of high finance and law and journalism, but mostly work in less glamorous jobs at Mutual of Omaha or at the county courthouse or on a farm or maybe even at the hardware store. Do we really think that if the media elites worked out of Nebraska instead of New York, and if they were overwhelmingly social conservatives instead of liberals, and if they overwhelmingly voted for Nixon and Reagan instead of McGovern and Mondale… do we really think that would make no difference? Does anyone really believe that the evening newscasts would fundamentally be the same? > > Sure, they’d still cover tornadoes and plane crashes pretty much the same way, but do we really think they’d cover abortion and affirmative action and gay rights the same way? Or would their conservatism, reinforced by their surroundings, their friends and neighbors, somehow - in some vague, subtle way - influence how they see the world and how they report the news? Maybe these make-believe conservative journalists would be more open-minded if there were some diversity in their lives. So, just to make sure that we don’t become too parochial out there on the plains, we would make sure that we had racial, ethnic, and gender diversity at our new network broadcast centers in Omaha. We would make sure that our news organizations were populated not just with white male conservatives but also with black male conservatives and Hispanic and Asian male conservatives and black and Hispanic and Asian women conservatives, too. > > Do we think that because we have this wonderful diversity, this magnificent rainbow coalition, that we would get a less narrow, less biased, and more honest newscast? > > Why does it look so patently ridiculous, so obviously silly, when the tables are turned, when conservatives are in the majority? Why don’t the people who run the networks in New York think it’s just as ridiculous, just as silly, and just as harmful to have such a disproportionate number of liberals, no matter what their color or gender or ethnic background, giving us the news each night? > > Does anyone think a “diverse” group of conservative journalists would give us the news straight? I sure as hell don’t. They’d be just like the Left. Except, they’d let their conservative biases slip into the news, and they’d swear on a stack of Bibles that they were mainstream… .just as liberals do now. It’s the human condition. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/107 "2013-08-20T17:41:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wrong again. He testified as to what he said he was told by others \*they \*had witnessed and done. :rolleyes: > > [Transcript here](https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html). Show us the lie, please. he testified before Congress regarding acts he claims happened but did not witness. His testimony was hearsay bullshit without evidence. It was a political stunt. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/108 "2013-08-20T17:43:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From Bernard Goldberg’s book _Bias_: This is a different allegation than the one being made in the thread, though. And you could not have picked a less credible citation. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/109 "2013-08-20T17:44:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > acts he claims happened Careful now: Where in the transcript do you see that? Show us, please. Again: He testified as to what he was told happened by those who said they were there and did them. > [@](#): > > His testimony was hearsay bullshit without evidence. Closer to the truth, \*perhaps \*- but quite a bit farther from your claim that he _lied_. :dubious: > [@](#): > > It was a political stunt. The decision to claim he lied, so as to convince those easily convinced, was a political stunt. It worked, too - the evidence of which is in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/110 "2013-08-20T17:45:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This is a different allegation than the one being made in the thread, though. And you could not have picked a less credible citation. Not precisely similar to the OP, granted – but very similar to the point I’m suggesting, which is the attention paid to scandals and proto-scandals by reporters. And I don’t see how the credibility of the author applies when what the text I’ve quoted is doing is asking you to engage in a thought experiment, rather than asking you to accept his testimony as to some historical event. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/111 "2013-08-20T17:49:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re right that it became a bigger story as it went on, of course, because half a dozen or a dozen women is going to be a bigger story. Filner’s absurd ‘rehab’ plan made it that much worse. But would you mind giving some more details here? What kind of coverage isn’t “really digging in?” I defined it in the remainder of that sentence. This was a local story with very few exceptions that I pointed out. When it became obvious that Filner was not going to get out of this and national Dems called for his resignation the national media started covering the story heavily. Almost as if the national Dems gave the media their marching orders by actively calling for him to step down. > [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, the columnist says there were rumors. You said the press knew what he was up to. I don’t think you’re going to acknowledge the difference, but those are not remotely the same thing. Not all rumors are true. That’s sort of an important distinction in journalism. That’s not to say they couldn’t have found out, but it’s also not a sure thing and you didn’t characterize the situation accurately. Saying they failed to look into the rumors is not the same as saying they knew it was true and didn’t report it. And how this guy knows what everyone else knew is beyond me. Curlee can comment on his own failures as a reporter, and I’m not sure how he knows everybody else blew off the story. The press can’t fully “know” what he is up to if they choose not to investigate. Ignorance is bliss. They deliberately ignored what they knew would be a scandal. Why? As Curlee says: > [@](#): > > Why didn’t we? Probably several reasons, although they are reasons that shouldn’t have been good enough to stop us. > > Was it because Filner had established himself as a Democratic power here—for a long time, the only Democratic power here? > > Was it because he had built his electoral power base generally south of Interstate 8, among the “minority” communities of African-Americans, Latinos and Filipinos? > > Was it because Filner totally controlled the votes and campaign funds of large and ever-growing organized labor groups, the unions? > > Was it because economic pressure was brought to bear on TV station ownerships or newspaper ownerships, all of whom depend on advertising dollars as their prime source of revenue? > > Was it because we were just lazy? > > I honestly don’t know, but there may have elements of all of the above involved. > > All I know for sure is that we had the chance—many chances over the years—to dig into the Filner story and find much of this out. Also, I didn’t say they knew it was true. I said: > [@Me](#): > > San Diego media knew long before the Filner story broke what he was up to but did little to investigate the matter I didn’t state that the media knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rumors were true. But, they didn’t even bother to look into them. Probably, as he implies in the article, because they were afraid of what they would find. > [@Marley23](#): > > Exactly. So just to make it clear, this was a story that was very harmful to a Democratic politician that was broken by a mainstream news outlet. As I stated above we are not talking about absolutes here. As I stated in my first post the bias is more about subtleties, ignoring a story on the evening broadcast (as opposed to morning shows) and the attempt to smear the entire party as opposed to an individual failing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/112 "2013-08-20T17:50:53Z")
A “thought experiment”? Is \*that \*what you call when you have to make some shit up in order to reach the conclusion you want? 😃 Pity those of us stuck in the reality-based community. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/113 "2013-08-20T17:53:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Whereas I would argue that there was never much of anything to the talking points story OR the IRS story, and the press helped the Republicans beat the scandal drum for weeks on end by repeating the allegations until the stories petered out. And of course it went without saying the accusations got a lot more coverage than the conclusion that not that much was going on in either case. The talking points story was a sideshow to cover something up. The press showed very little interest in the basics of the entire Benghazi story including the latest CNN story or trying to get anything from the survivors. Just a complete lack of curiosity. My guess is that they are afraid of what they will find. The IRS story is still unfolding so I’m surprised to hear you think there is so little to it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/114 "2013-08-20T17:54:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I don’t see how the credibility of the author applies when what the text I’ve quoted is doing is asking you to engage in a thought experiment, rather than asking you to accept his testimony as to some historical event. Because he makes his living complaining about anti-conservative bias in the news for the consumption of conservatives who already believe the media is biased against them. And he’s not very good at it: before going off into his fantasy about reporters going to school in Omaha, he neglects to mention that Dan Rather is from not-exactly-liberal Texas. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/115 "2013-08-20T17:56:19Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The press showed very little interest in the basics of the entire Benghazi story including the latest CNN story or trying to get anything from the survivors. Just a complete lack of curiosity. My guess is that they are afraid of what they will find. “Will” find? Tell us, O Sage, what else do you think might be there that Issa and his subpoenas couldn’t? Yes, we know you \*want \*there to be something, but that isn’t quite enough. > [@](#): > > The IRS story is still unfolding so I’m surprised to hear you think there is so little to it. Right, it’s still unfolding like the Iraq WMD story is still unfolding. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/116 "2013-08-20T17:58:48Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The talking points story was a sideshow to cover something up. What? The talking points were the thing Republicans were interested in! They insisted the White House had sent Susan Rice and others on the talk show circuit with a bunch of misleading talking points and had tried to keep the terrorist aspect of the story quiet so it wouldn’t hurt Obama’s reelection campaign. None of that panned out. > [@](#): > > The IRS story is still unfolding so I’m surprised to hear you think there is so little to it. It already unfolded that the IRS was scrutinizing both liberal and conservative groups and that the White House had nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/117 "2013-08-20T18:03:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What? The talking points were the thing Republicans were interested in! Almost. What they were (and still are) interested in is scoring a crippling, humiliating blow to Sec. Clinton personally and to her presidential prospects. Backfired on 'em at her testimony, though. > [@](#): > > It already unfolded that the IRS was scrutinizing both liberal and conservative groups and that the White House had nothing to do with it. It also unfolded that Issa had specifically limited his demands for info to IRS behavior toward \*conservative \*groups _only_. Naturally, that’s what he was provided with. Unfortunately that too blew up in his face. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/118 "2013-08-20T18:50:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What? The talking points were the thing Republicans were interested in! They insisted the White House had sent Susan Rice and others on the talk show circuit with a bunch of misleading talking points and had tried to keep the terrorist aspect of the story quiet so it wouldn’t hurt Obama’s reelection campaign. None of that panned out. Sure it did. She went on the Sunday talk shows and did exactly as she was told. Or do you have a better explanation? Just to be clear, are you of the opinion that: A) she acted completely on her own? B) she was doing what she was told, but she wasn’t told by “the White House”? C) if B, who gave her her direction? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/119 "2013-08-20T18:56:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sure it did. She went on the Sunday talk shows and did exactly as she was told. Or do you have a better explanation? Just to be clear, are you of the opinion that: I’m of the opinion that D) the claim that the White House gave her a deliberately false set of talking points didn’t stand up to scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/120 "2013-08-20T18:58:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m of the opinion that D) the claim that the White House gave her a deliberately false set of talking points didn’t stand up to scrutiny. So, you believe she was following what the White House told her, just that the error was unknown to the White House? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622.md?page=7)