I think way too much in politics is made out of little "gotcha" mistakes. It's like some people watch The Enemy and look for any slight misstatement…or even something which can be yanked out of context to create an attack point. During the last presidential election, there was one moment when Barack Obama said something about campaigning in "all 57 states." There was a moment when John McCain was asked about a blatantly racist statement that one of his supporters had made and McCain said, "I couldn't agree with him more."
Obviously, Obama misspoke. He did not actually think there were 57 states. Obviously, McCain misheard. He did not agree with the statement and later issued a statement saying so. I think candidates do lie and do say disingenuous things but adults should be able to distinguish between a clumsy bit of wording and an out-and-out falsehood. That is, adults who aren't trying to build a case against someone and who are willing to warp the truth to achieve their goal.
Back when Al Gore was running in 2000, he said more than a few clumsy things. He also said a few things that were true, though perhaps awkwardly phrased…like how he'd "invented the Internet" and that thing about him and his then-wife being the models for characters in the novel, Love Story. He really said nothing false there but his opponents did a good job of selling paraphrases of what he did say as evidence that Gore was some sort of psychotic habitual liar. My right-wingest friend Roger and I had some spirited debates over this. He had his differences with Gore over policies and priorities and I can respect that kind of thing. I just don't buy this drive to go past that and paint the candidate as mentally ill. I felt the same way about attempts to portray McCain last time around as senile.
Anyway, I dug around in old e-mails and found one Roger wrote to me during the 2000 election. We were debating whether Gore was a congenital liar because, you know, he'd said he "invented the Internet," as everyone quoted him as saying even though he hadn't used those words. Roger wrote to me, in part…
I have trouble voting to trust the country to someone who would say something that is so misleading. I value honesty above all other traits in a leader. You are correct that Gore did not exactly say he'd invented the Internet and I even agree that he did have a role in its establishment and that Drudge was wrong to say he hadn't. But Drudge was not wrong to say that Gore's statement was an exaggeration. It was not candid truth. Yes, he did later clarify it but that's because he got caught and had to back off what he'd said. It convinces me that he is not the man who should be trusted with the presidency.
So that's what he wrote then. This morning, I wrote to Roger…
I was wondering if you'd seen the item about how Paul Ryan was asked on a talk show what his best time was back when he used to run marathons. He replied, "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something." It turns out that his best time was actually a little over four hours and once called on this — i.e., once he got caught — he admitted it was so.
To me, this sounds like a harmless mistake but I'm guessing it means you consider Ryan a man who should not be trusted with the vice-presidency. It's certainly a clearer falsehood than any of the supposed "lies" that caused you to conclude Al Gore shouldn't be in the White House. Right?
His reply…
There's a big difference there but I'm not surprised you don't see it. Ryan is a good man who misspoke. Gore was a congenital liar.
This is not about Roger, who's a decent guy in spite of (I feel) being too eager to believe any negative thing said about the opposition. I never believed that George W. Bush was stupid or that he had advance knowledge of 9/11 or that he'd taken billions in bribes from oil-rich Saudis but there are folks out there who believe absolutely everything about Barack Obama as long as it's properly demonizing. (I was amazed by this piece by David Frum about a large part of the right-wing that takes it as obvious and indisputable that Obama is gay. I suspect among those people, that's because it's the worst thing they can find to say about anyone.)
I will be unhappy if Romney wins. So, I suspect, will a lot of the folks who'll vote for him, though perhaps not right away. But I'll be my unhappiest if he wins not because people decided his actual proposals and visions were right for the U.S. but because they were convinced that they had to get rid of the Muslim Socialist Commie who wants to destroy Medicare. Oh — and you knew he was gay, right?