Why is "lies" a taboo word in this presidential race?

[sketerpot]

Remember when Palin was talking about how she "opposed" the Bridge to Nowhere when she had actually been an ardent supporter until it became a national issue? She lied. In this interview with Keith Olbermann, Obama went through amazing verbal contortions to call this a lie without flat-out accusing Palin of lying, as such. (Paraphrasing:) "She said something that was the opposite of true", "she wasn't being truthful", etc. It's obvious that he's making an epic effort to avoid saying the word "lie".

Why can't he call a lie a lie? Would voters get the vapors? Is attacking liars now considered deplorably negative?

[General Zod]

It's very difficult to call something a lie and make it stick unless there's 100% solid evidence favoring you. Otherwise they can just spindoctor it away to not be a lie as has been the case several times during the last few months, so even then it's not a guarantee.

[Rye]

If Penn and Teller are to be believed, it's because words like "lies" are libel or slander, whereas "bullshit" or "not truthful" aren't.

[Erik von Nein]

If you say someone is lying and that person then charges you with liable you have to prove that said person did, indeed, know that what they said was a lie, rather than them being mistaken or being given the wrong information. Which is, pretty much, impossible, since you'd have to be a mind reader.

[Big Orange]

If Penn and Teller are to be believed, it's because words like "lies" are libel or slander, whereas "bullshit" or "not truthful" aren't.

In the British House of Commons you are not supposed to directly accuse the oppsition of lying and this led to a MP being overuled in session after trying to dent Blair's unpopular case for invading Iraq.

[Stormbringer]

Why can't he call a lie a lie? Would voters get the vapors? Is attacking liars now considered deplorably negative?

No but successful politicians all stretch the truth, at the very least. Both sides have a sort of gentleman's agreement not to go too hard after the lies lest they both get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

[sketerpot]

If you say someone is lying and that person then charges you with liable you have to prove that said person did, indeed, know that what they said was a lie, rather than them being mistaken or being given the wrong information. Which is, pretty much, impossible, since you'd have to be a mind reader.

In the US, as far as I know, the plaintiff has to prove that the allegedly-libelous statement was false.

Also, when the plaintiff is a public official or other public figure (like a senator), the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knew that the allegedly-libelous statement was false, or published it "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." [Quoted from the supreme court decision NY Times Co. vs. Sullivan].

Also if McCain tried suing Obama for libel, Obama could easily spin it as overly litigious madness. It wouldn't be a very smart move for McCain.

[Darth Wong]

Why can't he call a lie a lie? Would voters get the vapors? Is attacking liars now considered deplorably negative?

No but successful politicians all stretch the truth, at the very least. Both sides have a sort of gentleman's agreement not to go too hard after the lies lest they both get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

It's not hard to make a case that McCain/Palin have crossed the line between misleading statements and outright lies, especially when they say things that are blatantly untrue and then repeat them ad nauseum even after being corrected.

The reason no one can accuse anyone of lying is the stupid Mindless Middle attitude toward debating, where the person who seems too "aggressive" is somehow a villain and automatically loses. But of course, this standard itself is rather one-sided, since the right-wingers have been consistently more aggressive and offensive than the left-wingers, with no penalty.

Ultimately, the real problem is that right-wingers have a much longer leash than left-wingers do, because the entire country leans so far to the right. McCain/Palin could easily get away with accusing Obama of "lies", but if Obama did the same thing in return, he would be accused of having crossed some line.

[RedImperator]

The issue isn't a libel (not liable) suit, it's fear of retaliation. Accusing a politician of outright lying is, and has been for a long time, a political nuclear strike, and if you do it, anything is fair game. I'm not sure why this particular accusation is the worst possible one, but it is.

[Dominus Atheos]

The issue isn't a libel (not liable) suit, it's fear of retaliation. Accusing a politician of outright lying is, and has been for a long time, a political nuclear strike, and if you do it, anything is fair game. I'm not sure why this particular accusation is the worst possible one, but it is.

What exactly does John McCain have left in reserve? He's thrown every accusation at Obama that he can, including pedophile. The only other thing I can think of is Obama's middle name, which isn't used because even the stupidest swing voter would see through it as a cheap political ploy.

[Covenant]

This is why people are thinking that, and preparing for, McCain's next move is to throw a dirtball. Hit Obama with so much mud in such a short amount of time that the race gets so messy that it turns off independants and young voters and helps to suppress turnout as well as force Obama into stumbling about on the issues. Bring out some scandal or rumor or something. Work with the administration on some kind of October Suprise... something. A dirty trick.

It's also possible the Republicans will just push-poll real hard and try to do voter fraud, but I think Obama's going to have an efficent ground game at keeping that from happening TOO much. It always goes on a little, but this isn't a race where one single swing state is going to decide it. It'll be harder to pull utter fraud. And many of the swing states in question have democratic machines in power, not republican ones like we had in Florida and elsewhere. Those vote machines are garbage, but I think the D's are expecting some serious shit this time around, perhaps done on McCain's behalf but not at his behest. But we'll see. Either McCain gets dirty, gets really aggressive, or just continues to flail around. I'm not sure that's really convincing anyone.

[Stormbringer]

It's not hard to make a case that McCain/Palin have crossed the line between misleading statements and outright lies, especially when they say things that are blatantly untrue and then repeat them ad nauseum even after being corrected.

Quite true and there hasn't been much on that. On the other hand, very little has ever been made of Obama's obviously bullshit promises to either heavily re-write or abdicate NAFTA. There's a certain level of dishonesty that's just accepted as the white noise of politics.

The reason no one can accuse anyone of lying is the stupid Mindless Middle attitude toward debating, where the person who seems too "aggressive" is somehow a villain and automatically loses. But of course, this standard itself is rather one-sided, since the right-wingers have been consistently more aggressive and offensive than the left-wingers, with no penalty.

The attitude has been shaped pretty damn carefully by PR people on both sides. There have been rampant lying by both sides for decades and the code of silence has become a part of the culture of politics. This is what happens when you have campaigns spending the GDP of small nations trying to shape public opinion. Neither wants to really be held accountable for lies, so both do their best to make honest about them a negative.

Ultimately, the real problem is that right-wingers have a much longer leash than left-wingers do, because the entire country leans so far to the right. McCain/Palin could easily get away with accusing Obama of "lies", but if Obama did the same thing in return, he would be accused of having crossed some line.

Obviously popularity equates pretty heavily into tolerance and right now the Republicans are more popular. But that doesn't mean that it exclusively applies to the right-wing. Bill Clinton is a wonderful example in that he was caught in numerous lies over the years and was forgiven them simply because America liked his 'jee shucks' attitude.

[Stormbringer]

This is why people are thinking that, and preparing for, McCain's next move is to throw a dirtball. Hit Obama with so much mud in such a short amount of time that the race gets so messy that it turns off independants and young voters and helps to suppress turnout as well as force Obama into stumbling about on the issues. Bring out some scandal or rumor or something. Work with the administration on some kind of October Suprise... something. A dirty trick.

McCain, and for that matter all the one-time Republican nominees, and Shrillary Clinton all threw mud and it didn't work in the end. Hell, Hillary played the racism card of all things and that didn't work. McCain may throw mud but Obama's not the kind of ineffectual, invertebrates the Democrats have nominated in the last two elections. Unless Obama is caught doing or having done something truly offensive, and it's possible given he's already admitted some involvement with Rezko, I think there's going to be great difficulty making said mud stick.

People are deeply concerned about job security, health care, and the general cost of living. It's going to be hard to turn heads simply by the usual mudslinging. That largely worked because of the pathetic caliber of opposition.

It's also possible the Republicans will just push-poll real hard and try to do voter fraud, but I think Obama's going to have an efficent ground game at keeping that from happening TOO much. It always goes on a little, but this isn't a race where one single swing state is going to decide it.

Voter-fraud allegations are a dime a dozen and a great excuse for Democratic apologists. But proveable cases are very hard to come by and I doubt this election will be any different.

[Ender]

The issue isn't a libel (not liable) suit, it's fear of retaliation. Accusing a politician of outright lying is, and has been for a long time, a political nuclear strike, and if you do it, anything is fair game. I'm not sure why this particular accusation is the worst possible one, but it is.

NEWPORT NEWS, Virginia, Oct 4 (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign called his Democratic opponent Barack Obama a bald-faced liar on Saturday as the two sides traded barbs over reforming health insurance.

After a week where congressional negotiations over a $700 billion financial rescue package dominated the campaign, Obama used a rally in Virginia to refocus the political discourse on health insurance.

Health insurance is an emotive issue with voters ahead of the Nov. 4 election, with some 45 million Americans living without coverage and others worried about losing coverage if they lose their jobs in the economic slump.

"When you read the fine print, it's clear that John McCain is pulling an old Washington bait and switch. It's a shell game," Obama said of McCain's plan to reform health insurance.

"He gives you a tax credit with one hand but he raises your taxes with the other," the senator from Illinois told a crowd of about 18,000 supporters.

McCain's campaign shot back.

"Barack Obama is lying to voters," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement. "It's a bald-faced lie."

Both campaigns say they will improve access to health insurance and make care more affordable. On Saturday, both campaigns derided the other's plan as "radical."

The sharp exchange came as the more than year-long campaign enters the last month before the election.

New polls show Obama has solidified his national lead and gained an edge in crucial battleground states in recent weeks as the Wall Street crisis focused the attention of voters on the economy.

Now, McCain and Obama want to bring voter attention back to their policies and how their visions for America differ.

McCain and Obama will get to talk in person about health insurance and other issues on Tuesday when they meet for the second of three nationally televised presidential debates, this one in Nashville, Tennessee.

NO QUICK FIX

With expectations high that the U.S. crisis, which has created turbulence in global financial markets, might tip the world's richest economy into recession, President George W. Bush said Americans should not expect a quick fix.

"My administration will move as quickly as possible, but the benefits of this package will not all be felt immediately," Bush, a Republican whose two terms in office will end in January, said in his weekly radio address.

Responding for the Democrats, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said the loss of 760,000 U.S. jobs so far in 2008 showed that ordinary people had felt the pinch of a slowing economy all year and likened McCain to Bush.

"John McCain just doesn't get it. He hasn't said one thing he'd do to make his economy look any different than George Bush's economy," Strickland said.

In Colorado, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said she was not concerned about polls showing McCain trailing Obama in many battleground states, including several won by Republicans in the last presidential election in 2004.

Joking that the "heels are off," Palin launched into an aggressive assault on Obama, accusing him of "palling around with terrorists" and calling him an embarrassment.

She cited a New York Times story on Saturday examining Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Vietnam-era militant Weather Underground organization who is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The Times concluded they were not close.

"Our opponent though is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that is he palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?" Palin told a fund-raiser in Englewood, Colorado.

Recent polls show McCain, an Arizona senator, in a dogfight in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Missouri and Indiana. All were won by Bush in 2004 and McCain cannot afford to lose them as he tries to piece together the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the White House.

Palin, the governor of Alaska, said she would like the chance to campaign in Michigan, won by Democrat John Kerry in 2004, after McCain announced on Thursday he was pulling staff and advertising from the Midwestern state for the final push to the Nov. 4 election. (Additional reporting by Jason Szep in Colorado and Jeff Mason in Arizona; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

linka

[Durandal]

Well, I guess McCain's just opened up the floodgates.

[Surlethe]

The issue isn't a libel (not liable) suit, it's fear of retaliation. Accusing a politician of outright lying is, and has been for a long time, a political nuclear strike, and if you do it, anything is fair game. I'm not sure why this particular accusation is the worst possible one, but it is.

What's the history behind accusations of lying, that lead to it being seen that way?

[RedImperator]

The issue isn't a libel (not liable) suit, it's fear of retaliation. Accusing a politician of outright lying is, and has been for a long time, a political nuclear strike, and if you do it, anything is fair game. I'm not sure why this particular accusation is the worst possible one, but it is.

What's the history behind accusations of lying, that lead to it being seen that way?

I'm not sure of the total history. It's had some pretty big impacts in the past, though: Bob Dole torpedoed himself in the New Hampshire primary in 1988 by accusing George H.W. Bush of lying about his record, just to offer one example.

Anyway, we'll see what happens now that the McCain campaign has officially dropped the "L" word in public. It certainly frees the Obama campaign to call all of McCain's previous lies what they are. I wonder if part of the McCain strategy is to just make the last month of the election so dirty and nasty that a lot of people just get fed up and stay home. I don't think it will work, but if I were in their situation, that's certainly what I'd try.

[Darth Wong]

If Obama responded in kind, he would get tarred for it far worse than McCain would. As I said, the whole country leans right, and the bar is set twice as high for a Democratic candidate as it is for a Republican one. Especially a black Democratic candidate, for whom 30% of the country would probably never vote no matter what happened.

They've been openly accusing Obama of being a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer since last year. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if Obama openly accused McCain or Palin of being traitors to America? Or terrorist sympathizers?

[Saxtonite]

What exactly does John McCain have left in reserve? He's thrown every accusation at Obama that he can, including pedophile.

can you explain/post links/examples please?

[Darth Wong]

What exactly does John McCain have left in reserve? He's thrown every accusation at Obama that he can, including pedophile.

can you explain/post links/examples please?

He approved and ran an ad claiming that Obama "wants to give comprehensive sex education to children in kindergarten", and not only did he refuse to apologize for the blatant smear but he and his pet RepubliBitch In Waiting repeated the claim when challenged.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The issue isn't a libel (not liable) suit, it's fear of retaliation. Accusing a politician of outright lying is, and has been for a long time, a political nuclear strike, and if you do it, anything is fair game. I'm not sure why this particular accusation is the worst possible one, but it is.

What's the history behind accusations of lying, that lead to it being seen that way?

I'm not sure of the total history. It's had some pretty big impacts in the past, though: Bob Dole torpedoed himself in the New Hampshire primary in 1988 by accusing George H.W. Bush of lying about his record, just to offer one example.

Anyway, we'll see what happens now that the McCain campaign has officially dropped the "L" word in public. It certainly frees the Obama campaign to call all of McCain's previous lies what they are. I wonder if part of the McCain strategy is to just make the last month of the election so dirty and nasty that a lot of people just get fed up and stay home. I don't think it will work, but if I were in their situation, that's certainly what I'd try.

So you think they're trying to get Cool Barry off his meditative pedestal from where he's made McSame look terrible for the last couple weeks by tempting him to come down into the dirty gutter? I don't think it'll work if the last debate is any indication.

[RedImperator]

So you think they're trying to get Cool Barry off his meditative pedestal from where he's made McSame look terrible for the last couple weeks by tempting him to come down into the dirty gutter? I don't think it'll work if the last debate is any indication.

I think the idea is either Obama says nothing and the lies stick, helping McSame, or yeah, Obama climbs down into the ditch with them, helping McSame. There's a silver lining to the McCain campaign blowing all their credibility on the Summer of Lies campaign; their reputation can't get much worse, while Obama has a long way to fall if he engages.

The reason I think this won't work is because 1) the Obama campaign is smarter than the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and 2) the economy is so terrible there's no room on the front page for this kind of bullshit. Any smear strategy depends on the media repeating the claims; if they're buried on page A-26 while "Dow in freefall again" is on pages A-1 through 25, it's lost in the noise. Even a new Bin Laden video would get knocked off the front page in this environment; I don't think even the Reverend Wright scandal would be able to hold headlines for more than a day or two.

[Count Chocula]

MAD - Mutual Assured Discreditation. If Candidate A calls Candidate B a liar, he or she had better be ready to be counter-accused. The chances are excellent that every practicing politician, of every political stripe, has told numerous lies to the press and constituents. Not calling your opponent a liar reduces the risk that your own lies will be brought to light.

[Dominus Atheos]

What exactly does John McCain have left in reserve? He's thrown every accusation at Obama that he can, including pedophile.

can you explain/post links/examples please?

Here you go.

[General Zod]

LOLOL!

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Republican John McCain is calling Democratic rival Barack Obama a liar.

The GOP presidential candidate told a campaign rally: "Sen. Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed."

In some of the harshest language yet, McCain said the campaign comes down to a simple question: Who is the real Barack Obama?

McCain drew the loudest cheers when he said the Democrat has written two memoirs but "he's not exactly an open book."

Trailing in the polls, McCain and his advisers say they will hammer that theme as the campaign heads toward the Nov. 4 election.

The sheer level of hypocrisy is stunning, but more proof that McSame really doesn't have anything left.