Is Truth the First Casualty of Politics?
 

There oughtta be a law. We, the American people, are being bombarded by political ads that are filled with lies, deceptions, and misrepresentations of the facts. How are we supposed to judge the best candidate for the highest office in the land when the truth about one of the candidates is skewed by the other candidate to give the voters a misconception about the qualifications, past voting history, or intent of that candidate? Is there a watchdog organization to make sure that "truth in advertising" prevails in political ads as well as in the commercial ads designed to affect our choices?

The Bush campaign is showing political ads saying that Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential candidate, voted to raise taxes on gasoline. With the current high price of gasoline, this would put the pump price in some states over $3.00 a gallon, if it were a recent vote. What the Bush ads leave out is that Kerry voted for a tax raise in 1994, ten years ago, when gas was much cheaper, as a means of raising revenue to balance the budget. His support was lukewarm and the bill, sponsored by Sen. Charles Robb, would have raised federal gasoline tax 10 cents a year over 5 years. Shouldn't they be required to tell the truth, the whole truth?

What constitutes a lie? Is it presenting total non-facts? Is it telling partial truths? Is it the omission of facts? Where does it cross the morality line? The Miriam-Webster Dictionary defines a lie as "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive or mislead." Do you think that the Bush campaign knows that Kerry's proposal to raise taxes on gasoline was a ten year old proposal? By not letting the public know it was a ten year old vote, did they intend to deceive or mislead?

Included in that same George W. Bush approved ad is an assertion that Kerry voted to increase taxes on Social Security. What is omitted are the details that it was for higher income households of over $44,000, the vote was in 1993, and the proceeds would go into the Medicare fund. Do you think the Bush campaign knew these important additional facts and deliberately withheld them with the intention to deceive or mislead voters?

The Bush campaign states that John Kerry would increase taxes by $900 billion in his first 100 days in office. This is a claim that Kerry flatly denies and the Bush campaign has only assumed this from estimates of the cost of some of Kerry's proposals. What Sen. Kerry said was that he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year. Should assumptions not stated and denied by the opposing candidate be allowed in campaign ads and presented as fact or is this an attempt to deceive or mislead?

When an administration has no record of its own to run on, should they be allowed to run attack ads that are deceptive or misleading? Do we want a man as president who approves playing fast and loose with the truth? Do we want a man as president who cannot find anything positive in his own record to run on so he must resort to running negative ads about his opponent? Do we want an administration that has been accused of lying us into a war, lying about information they had before 9-11, smearing the CIA undercover agent wife of a man who exposed a lie told in a SOTU message, and now according to the dictionary, is lying in their campaign, to have another 4 years to continue feeding us more lies?

Do you want the truth or lies? Do you want to know how a candidate stands on issues or do you want deceptive smears? You will have the opportunity to decide in November.

4-6-04