Democrats' lying game

David Harsanyi:

These days, there is an outbreak of artificial indignation over the "lies" of Republicans. John McCain, claims Barack Obama's national press secretary Bill Burton, has run the "sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history."

Ouch. We can attribute one of the following to this claim: 1) Burton has just landed on the planet Earth; 2) Burton is attempting to manipulate the media; 3) Burton is "lying."

I pick 2. After all, we've all heard the self-serving myth that pits helpless, meek, high-minded, issue-oriented Democrats against mendacious and mean Republicans, who not only detest America — especially children and small vulnerable creatures — but will lie and cheat to keep all oppressed.

The facts betray a more equitable story. And it starts with Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and opposed earmarks. This is an elastic political truth.

Technically, she did stop the project after initially supporting it. She has taken earmarks — even lobbied for them while mayor of Wasilla. As governor, though, Palin also vetoed over 300 wasteful projects and made an attempt to reform the process. Her record on earmarks is mixed, but by any measure, it's far superior to either Democratic candidate.

Moreover, if this Palin claim can be classified as an untruth, Obama can be called a "liar" just as easily.

Take, if you will, the foundational assertion of Obama's entire campaign that he is the candidate of post-partisan change. Obama, meanwhile, voted with fellow Democrats 96 percent of the time in Washington. And the bipartisan achievement he most often cites, an ethics reform bill, was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.

Unanimous: ". . . being in complete harmony or accord."

So, then, "Unity" should be referred to as a poetic truth.

And when much of the media acts as if it is personally offended by a questionable McCain ad accusing Obama of voting for a bill that would have provided sex education to kindergartners, you feel the pain. It was, indeed, a massive stretch.

It reminds me of the Obama ad that accuses McCain of having "voted to cut education funding" and "proposed" the abolishment of the Department of Education despite neither being true. Not much anger at that one. Just a lot of talk about the media's responsibility to keep candidates honest. And absolutely, journalists have a responsibility to put every single candidate through the wringer.

...

So maybe, when ABC's Charlie Gibson has the chance to chit-chat with Obama, he can ask him — twice — how, with his dearth of experience and his own 2004 "lie" that he would "serve out my full six-year term" in the Senate — whether he really, truly, actually believes he is ready for the job of the presidency. Or did he blink? Ever?

...

If perchance Gibson did ask such a question, will he have his Russert like video tape where Obama admitted he was not ready. There are several out there. The fact is that some literal truth can be found in all the McCain ads. What is omitted are the explanatory footnotes that Obama would like included. The same thing happens even more often in Democrat ads and sound bites. Until election laws outlaw the "material failure to disclose" as the securities laws do, you will always have this in politics.

You will also have it in commentary, although Harsanyi appears to be an unusual exception. He brings light to the debate rather than added heat. The hysteria on normally stable writers like Richard Cohen lets you know where there emotions are, but they ought to try to keep their composure under the stress of a campaign.