One thing our culture has a hard time dealing with is when politicians are 'beyond the pale'.
The media has a hard time just saying 'this major candidate is a flat out liar'. The strongest they seem able to do are the 'critics say' and the 'evidence appears to suggest' lines.
So those politicians who are outreageously dishonest enough to tell big lies seem to get some damage control from doing so.
Case in point: The Alaska legislature's bi-partisan (large majority Republican) report on her abuse of power said as its first finding that she did, as the media reported, "found that Palin "abused her power" by violating the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, which holds that any "effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action" is a violation of the public trust."
Palin's response was to claim the report 'cleared her' of 'any hint of ethical wrongdoing'.
She lied. Big lie. Clear lie.
But the media was just unable to call her on it, exactly. A reporter pointed out the report in its first finding did say she abused her power and violated the statute, but did not challenge her for her lie, and instead simply asked her if she felt she'd done anything wrong, as if she had not just lied. Palin said absolutely nothing.
That'd be like asking reporting the OJ Simpson verdict with a quote from him on whether he felt he had done anything wrong after he said the jury had cleared him.
I think bit lie politicians need to be confronted on their actions. The issue needs to shift from Troopergate to Liargate, to say to Palin, 'why are you lying about the report?'
It needs to be reported as a matter of fact, not controversy, that she is lying about what the report said.
What this incident suggest is that, regardless of her other issue, including the behavior in Troopergate, she is willing to tell big lies for political reasons, and that's a big issue.
And it should be a bi-partisan one.
This isn't one of those lies where there is another side to the story, where the issue has some controversy - it's a blatantly dishonest attempt to use PR against the report.
She is welcome to say she disagrees with the findings all day long, but not to lie about what the report says.
The media has a hard time just saying 'this major candidate is a flat out liar'. The strongest they seem able to do are the 'critics say' and the 'evidence appears to suggest' lines.
So those politicians who are outreageously dishonest enough to tell big lies seem to get some damage control from doing so.
Case in point: The Alaska legislature's bi-partisan (large majority Republican) report on her abuse of power said as its first finding that she did, as the media reported, "found that Palin "abused her power" by violating the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, which holds that any "effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action" is a violation of the public trust."
Palin's response was to claim the report 'cleared her' of 'any hint of ethical wrongdoing'.
She lied. Big lie. Clear lie.
But the media was just unable to call her on it, exactly. A reporter pointed out the report in its first finding did say she abused her power and violated the statute, but did not challenge her for her lie, and instead simply asked her if she felt she'd done anything wrong, as if she had not just lied. Palin said absolutely nothing.
That'd be like asking reporting the OJ Simpson verdict with a quote from him on whether he felt he had done anything wrong after he said the jury had cleared him.
I think bit lie politicians need to be confronted on their actions. The issue needs to shift from Troopergate to Liargate, to say to Palin, 'why are you lying about the report?'
It needs to be reported as a matter of fact, not controversy, that she is lying about what the report said.
What this incident suggest is that, regardless of her other issue, including the behavior in Troopergate, she is willing to tell big lies for political reasons, and that's a big issue.
And it should be a bi-partisan one.
This isn't one of those lies where there is another side to the story, where the issue has some controversy - it's a blatantly dishonest attempt to use PR against the report.
She is welcome to say she disagrees with the findings all day long, but not to lie about what the report says.