Thank goodness someone is addressing the pathology of the “Lie” in our public discourse. But what is emerging is a double layer of defense of this pathology. Where once talking about an actual lie and it’s specifics determined the validity of the lie, apparently now we have to break through a first line of defense which is that there is a possibility of any lying at all going on before anyone can get to the actual substance and specifics of any particular individual lie. The latter is quite simple to address because it gets down to actual specifics, otherwise known as facts, thus leading to a clear determination of whether it is a lie or not a lie. The former is apparently a mysterious impenetrable force field for minds in the media to penetrate. So basically the exposure of the specifics of the lie are usurped by the tedious argument that is forced to be had about even using the word “lie”.
BEGALA: That’s just not true. You know, John, the facts matter.
There’s lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or
less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a
fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a
fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as
governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare
state taking money from the federal government.ROBERTS: We still have 56 days to talk about this back and forth.
BEGALA: This is the problem. We have this false debate when we ought
to have at least agreed upon facts.
