We've all heard the story about how George Washington admitted to his father that he chopped down a cherry tree. It's a straightforward story with a clear moral: People shouldn't lie.
I wonder if someday there will be a similar children's story regarding spin.
When members of the Bush Administration are caught telling a lie, misstating a fact, or make a bad prediction, the first instinct isn't to admit the mistake. Rather, it's to spin.
The reason for this is the administration's desire to stay "on message." Unhappy with the way Iraqis are handling the war? Get them "on message" with propaganda. Don't like what your top generals say about Iraqi troop self-sufficiency? Stay "on message," even if it means using creative math.
Back in August, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart provided a brilliant look at how the administration tries to stay "on message" by repeating the same catch-phrases over and over.
And let's face it, "staying on message" has worked wonders for George W. Bush. The "message" in 2000, for example, was to ask the nation repeatedly how many times Florida ballots should be "recounted," when they never were officially recounted in accordance with state law. Bush may never have been the nominee, of course, had it not been for South Carolinians being blanketed by the "message" about Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - that he was a Manchurian Candidate who had fathered a child with a black New York prostitute.
***
To see a full example of how the Bush Administration stays "on message," take a look at the Dec. 4 edition of Fox News Sunday. Host Chris Wallace gave National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley three opportunities to admit Vice President Dick Cheney made a mistake in May when he said the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes."
But Hadley, the loyal soldier, knows that when faced with admitting a mistake, the first instinct is to spin. The results are almost comical:
Opportunity 1:
WALLACE: Last May, Vice President Cheney said the following, and let’s put it up on the screen if we can, I think the level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline. I think they’re in their last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. Since then, 462 American troops have died. The insurgency back in May was not in its last throes, was it?
HADLEY: One of the things the president did in his speech on Wednesday was to try and be clear about who is the enemy, who we’re up against, and he categorized it really in three ways…
Opportunity 2:
WALLACE: But, Mr. Hadley, with respect, I don’t think you answered my question. Was the vice president mistaken last May when he talked about an insurgency in its last throes, given the fact that almost 500 American troops have been killed since then?
Article comments
1 - david r. mark
Can I assume this post successfully quiets my critics?
2 - Natalie Davis
Perhaps they are in silent agreement.
3 - MCH
Great post, David, thanx! I particularly appreciated your link to the Karl Rove and GW Bush sliming of John McCain in the 2000 primary, where Joe Connesin said;
"Watching her husband embrace the president in the new commercial must be distressing to Cindy McCain, whose former dependence on prescription drugs was highlighted in anonymous campaign leaflets the night before the South Carolina primary - before anyone knew that Rush Limbaugh would make drug addiction fashionable on the far right"
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
One comment I do want to make was at the beginning where "the administration ... put [Iraqis] 'on message' with propaganda."
And I've read letters to the editor where people actually believe that Bush and Cheney bribed Iraqi journalists to put stories in the paper.
Obviously this is not the subject of your post but: practicality of this method notwithstanding, if there's no proof that Bush and Cheney authorized this tactic, then isn't that a criticism of the Pentagon and not of the Bush Administration?
5 - david r. mark
Well, if it was authorized by Donald Rumsfeld, which is what's been reported, then one would assume that it was done with the knowledge of the rest of the administration.
6 - troll
this is an outrageous libelous post full of hate speech - a cherry tree is not 'trivial'
troll
7 - Dave Nalle
Can I assume this post successfully quiets my critics?
No, I actually ignore your posts unless they show up on the active comments list in the hope that they'll vanish into the obscurity they deserve. But now that you've taken to indulging your ego by responding to your own posts in order to attract attention to them I'm at a loss to figure out what kind of response that would pass the comment guidelines I can actually make.
Dave
8 - Bliffle
Huh?
9 - Christopher Rose
Concentrating on the topic of the article, which is making the argument that the Bush administration is more interested in sticking to the party line rather than telling the truth, would probably be the way to go if you want to post again.
Or, you know, actually ignoring them...
And his motivation.
10 - david r. mark
Dave, my last few posts have averaged something like 50 comments. I was a little surprised that this one didn't generate any interest in the first 12 or so hours.
11 - Dave Nalle
Christopher, all my responses to David's posts end up the same way. I show the fallaciousness of his reasoning and point out that he's overlooked all examples that run counter to his points and/or is portraying as a Bush-specific negative something which all politicians do. He then asserts that his facts are correct and I have no facts to prove that they aren't. I then point out that it doesn't matter if his facts are correct if they are cherrypicked or heavily spun to suit his purposes and therefore don't present an accurate picture of the issue. He then accuses me of lying or something along those lines, and it just degenerates from there.
See, I just saved a whole bunch of bandwidth.
Dave
12 - Christopher Rose
DAVE: If you don't like Mr Mark's words, ignore them or challenge them. Comments like your #11 COULD quite reasonably be construed as a personal attack in themselves if we want to get picky over the whole thing. I really don't want to get into that whole line of thinking.
I'm trying to cut you guys, and the whole site, a little slack cos nobody wants this place to get boring, so let's just keep to the subject and not concern ourselves with personalities.
I would further urge you Dave to write some more articles yourself laying out your positive visions for progress so they can be enjoyed by all. Maybe you and I should do a Berlin-Winn style thing on Europe or some other issue of mutual interest?
As Black Eyed Peas so wisely sing:
"my humps, my humps, my little lady lumps", sorry, "Where is the love?"13 - Mary reborn literally
Two people could be alone together on an island and find something to argue about. One being domineering personality and the other of a fretful nature, might co-exist if the conditions were right. People know about skeletons in the closet does not literally mean there are. So we find flaws in character but look, the masses of people are flawed and what can you do about it?
14 - Nancy
Getting down to brass tacks, the basic fact is this administration, starting at the top, has no compunctions or conscience about lying, to anybody, as & when it suits their purpose. They seem to think that calling it "spin" or "staying on message", but it boils down to the same thing in the real world, a quintessential lack of honesty & honor in every single one of them, an arrogant assumption that the people of the US - & the world - are so beneath them we don't deserve the truth, we should just accept whatever crap they deign to throw us, without question. This administration, headed by Bush & Cheney, is indeed rotten to the core, but it's a rot that started long before either one of them ever got elected to anything, & is indicative of serious lack of integrity & massive character flaws in them & the others in their cadre, such as Wolfowitz, Rice, & Rumsfield.
15 - lumpy
Let me summarize this post in one line:
"OMG the Bush administration is full of politicians! I'm shocked, just shocked! How horrid!"
Give me a break from the hypocrisy, please.
16 - david r. mark
Lumpy, that's the "everybody does it" defense.
It doesn't fly. Why? Because the Clinton Administration was never found guilty of "covert propaganda," as described by the non-partisan GAO. Neither was the previous Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration never had town hall meetings with hand-picked audiences asking pre-screened questions. Neither did the previous Bush Administration.
The thing about Hadley's non-answers on Fox News is that he didn't even try to defend Cheney. He just offered answers to questions not asked.
To me, the non-answers equate to no confidence in Cheney's "last throes" comment. He didn't have anything positive to say, so he didn't say anything. Ken Mehlman does it all the time on Meet the Press and Hardball.
We as viewers can read into the non-answers. But it would be much more helpful and informative if they just answered the questions honestly.
17 - MDE
David - sorry for busting into your thread off topic...love your stuff - good leftist propaganda (or truth if you prefer)
Christopher:
You are making a mistake. It is your responsibility to keep threads neither on topic nor on an even keel. Meta-arguments about style, motives and - yes - personality are basic to open political discussion. There is nothing wrong with pissing people off. Additionally, tangential arguments can add to the creative magic of colalaberative thought.
When "troll" started commenting here I tried to develop a style and format that allowed me to present my takes on these meta-arguments " of which most correctly could have been interpreted as personal attacks " in an interesting and humorous fashion. Some readers enjoyed my stuff and many considered it stupid shit. Most of it was intended to raise the heat.
It worked back when policy was interpreted as: personal attacks are grudgingly allowed but editors will step in when things "get out of hand"; a certain amount of offensive "street theater" is encouraged. My comments were rarely edited.
But the loose interpretation has been set aside.
To honor the wish of BC principles that insults, aggression and blood pressure be kept under control, I stopped throwing intellectual trespassers off BC’s bridge effectively leaving troll an empty shell in need of a new venue who finds his own comments here humorless. (Kiss him goodnight.)
Now a comment like #11 inspires you to step in with #12?
Good Grief
take your misguided ego-maniacal editorial threats and lectures off my bridge
Mark
[Mark/MDE/Troll:- I have been through every comment made from your current IP and, without having taken a microscope to each one, I can not see that any of your comments have ever been edited. If that is correct, I fail to understand your complaint.
We are trying to encourage a user-friendly environment here and are doing our best to make that work for everybody. Neither BlogCritics nor myself want to neuter debate or stifle friendly banter. The line between the two is ever shifting and we do our best to keep it in sight.
I don't think my mild words in #12 were particularly repressive but if I have caused you to feel that way, I regret it. Comments Editor]
18 - MDE
you want to be a good editor? Fix ' colalaberative'
Mark
19 - Bliffle
One expects a certain amount of evasiveness, spin, and sliming during the political process, but then hopes that this will be reduced or eliminated when The Candidate achieves office and is not obsessed with struggling for election. Thus, one puts up with Bush sliming fellow republican McCain in the SC primary, thinking "well, that's what happens in hard fought primaries". But this administration regards election as merely the start of the next election cycle and so continues to spin and feels no requirement to be straight with civilians. The office becomes merely another stage upon which to mount campaign efforts.
20 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, for both parties it's been non-stop campaigning 24/7/365 for at least 20 years. You have to campaign to get in office, then you have to campaign to remain popular in office and have a legacy, plus there are off-year elections which are a measure of your success, so the process goes on and on and on.
Dave
21 - Bliffle
Well, OK, that's true. But We The People have to stop putting up with it. From any party. Too many times I've seen devotees of one party or the other say "wow, he really put down those liberals/neocons (take your choice) with that answer!", after a non-answer, outright lie, or unasked answer.
22 - Dave Nalle
Well, then maybe the Democrats should go back to their Jacksonian roots, fire all their office holders and grab random people off the street and run them instead.
Dave