If a candidate is willing to lie, why wouldn't they be willing to break an oath not to lie?

And you think that making them promise to tell the truth will actually work?

Wow, I wanna visit your planet someday.

I'm just sad that among all the Americans who are qualified to hold the position of president, these two clowns are the best we can come up with from which to choose.

YHBT. HAND.

What a load of crap. Every independent analysis demonstrates that McCain is using bald-faced lies in his ads and speeches, while Obama is at worst leaving out information.

These idiotic media critiques that equate the two campaigns on vitriol, truth telling or negative advertising are just stupid. By trying to say that the campaigns are equal, Ad Age is engaging in untruthfullness itself.

Tonight both candidates will knowingly repeat falsehoods that have been exposed two debates or longer ago. I don't know what it will take to get this to stop happening, but it drives me crazy.

UMBRIEL@1: I was thinking the same. Yeah, the oath thing will fix it.

HUNTSU@4: Well said. There are degrees of lying, and if both candidates were Pinocchio, I'm sure McCain would not be able to make it onto the "Strait Talk Express" for the length if his nose.

What we need is a computer polygraph device like on Star Trek (the original series) that each candidate should have their hand on as they debate.

And why stop there? What about the so called liberal media? Can we get a Pinocchio meter for Fox News / Bill O'Reilly / Rush Limbaugh / Ann Coulter?

@HUNTSU.

I fail to see how lying and "leaving out information" can be seperated in this case. If you know relevant information exists, and you choose to leave it out because if you did include it your message would not be valid, explain how that isn't just as bad as a "bald-faced" lie.

I fail to see how lying and "leaving out information" can be seperated

Funnily enough, some people see life as subtle and complex.

Truth?

Rashômon

see? you left out information! "in this case" was at the end of my first sentence. When you are making a campaign ad to persuade a voter, i don't see how leaving out relevant info or just plain lying to them can really be seperated. Either way you are manipulating the message for your own purpose right?

#1 "If a candidate is willing to lie, why wouldn't they be willing to break an oath not to lie?"

Apparently there's nothing wrong with being a liar unless you say you aren't.

@WAREAGLE

Obama has been saying that McCain wants to raise taxes on employer based health insurance, which is 100% true. The critique of this from Obama is that he doesn't discuss the $5,000 tax credit for buying your own insurance policy on the outside.

But leaving out that aspect of McCain's plan is not a bald-faced lie. The $5,000 tax credit would not be enough to offset the $10,000+ cost of an on the street insurance policy, meaning that people would have to go from getting their health insurance at no cost to paying $5,000 for it.

This is very different from McCain saying that Obama has announced plans to bomb Pakistan, or that Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, or that Obama switched his position on clean coal, etc., etc., etc.

The difference is that McCain and Palin are saying things that are 100% diametrical to reality, while Obama is presenting his case in a way that looks best from his side but is still accurate.

I see many of Obama's statements as outright lies. (The same can be said of McCain, but that's not the point of my comment.) Here's an example. Obama claims that health insurance costs per household will decrease as much as $2,500 based on savings associated with information technology and improved outcomes associated with preventive medicine. This number is a complete fabrication, and Obama knows it, yet he continues to push it.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html

First, IT spending, especially with regard to EMR systems, have not shown to be cost-effective. Second, anyone knowledgeable on care for the uninsured will tell you that providing full coverage to them will double or triple their current consumption of medical care.

"People uninsured for any part of 2008 spend about $30 billion out of pocket and receive approximately $56 billion in uncompensated care while uninsured. Government programs finance about 75 percent of uncompensated care. If all uninsured people were fully covered, their medical spending would increase by $122.6 billion.

Hadley J, et al. Health Affairs, 27, no. 5 (2008): w399-w415

Now, in both cases that investment is something society should do for the greater good. However, presenting it as something that will pay for itself is a complete falsehood. I have a major problem with it knowingly being presented this way. I can supply similar examples for almost all of Obama's policies.

You know we're down the rabbit hole when the Ad Guy is calling out the candidates for outdoing his own professions' S.O.P.:

"...fabricating big lies from nominal truths has become standard operating procedure."

So, the particular one picked out by the author of the article is Obama's criticism of John McCain's position on Stem Cell Research.

Now, John McCain may be in favour of allowing some sort of stem cell research. Personally. He may have voted for increased funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Want to bet this was part of a package plan bill?

The 2008 National GOP platform, however, upon which /he is running/, opposes /all/ stem-cell research. Period.

Sarah Palin explicitly opposes funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

Oh, goodness. Obama called McCain out for being an apologetic to the anti-science ministrations of the GOP, and gets called a liar for it?

I suppose it really does depend, in the eyes of some people, on what you mean by the word "is".

@HUNTSU

"people would have to go from getting their health insurance at no cost"

..uhhh..how the heck do i get on that plan??? I pay out the ass for health care, thru my employer, and i'm 29 and never even go to the doctor.

anyway, I agree that the McCain campaign sucks and they lie. I still don't agree with you though that Obama should be absolved from critique and anyone who does critique him is "idiotic" and "a load of crap", because he only leaves out information instead of flat out lies.

And I'm sure if I looked deeper I could easily find a scenario where Obama bald-faced lied himself.

@DEVIANT

This is what your link says:

Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.

That's not the same as "Obama knows it"'s not true.

Their experts didn't even say there was no way, just that there was little evidence. That means there was some evidence.

And maybe Obama has different experts.

@WAREAGLE

Yeah, maybe I could have written the "no cost" thing better, but getting insurance through an employer is still significantly lower cost than workers could get on the street. But the fact is getting your insurance right now through your employer is cheaper than getting is on the street with McCain's plan.

The individual point itself doesn't take away from the larger argument, however, that Obama didn't lie about the plan and that the overall impression he created that McCain's plan makes health insurance more expensive is true.

Secondly, you are just making stuff up. I did not say "Obama should be absolved from critique and anyone who does critique him is 'idiotic' and 'a load of crap'". I said that this Ad Age critique was idiotic and that media pieces that equate the two campaigns are a load of crap.

Obama should be critiqued when he is wrong. I have no problem with that. But you can't equate a guy smoking a joint with a heroin kingpin, and you can't equate spin with outright lies.

@HUNTSU: And maybe Obama has different experts.

That's just intellectually dishonest. I quoted Hadley & Houlihan, the foremost peer-reviewed experts on the caring for the uninsured. All other published, peer-reviewed findings are consistent with theirs. It is scientific consensus. You're making the same argument the right is making about global warming, which I find just as bankrupt.

Obama's statement about his savings to the health care system is untenable. Now, it's possible that he is oblivious to this, but that would mean he's oblivious to what is known by all first year graduate students in health policy and health economics.

Yeah. . . but they would insist even now that they haven't lied, and their most fervent supporters will believe them, AND if they are both doing it what's an honest voter to do? Switch? Vote for some 3rd party liar?

And I'm sure if I looked deeper I could easily find a scenario where Obama bald-faced lied himself.

Then do so or I'll disemvowel you.

#15:

So what you're saying is that McCain is willing to work with people on the other side of an issue from him, and Obama is willing to write them off and push his own policies without any input from a large portion of the population he will represent when elected?

That's not "Change" at all. It's Exactly the same kind of partisan bullsh*t that turned George "Uniter not a Divider" Bush into a partisan joke before there even was an Iraq war.

The sad thing about Obama getting elected is that it proves that the lying pandering bullsh*t works. The candidate that does the best job at it is going to win. Standing up with and saying with a straight face at every stump speech that he's "Change we can believe in" is the biggest lie being told in this campaign. It's his main selling point, yet he's clearly a partisan just like everybody else.

Worse, comments like yours indicate that people don't really want change. They want to be pandered to themselves instead of having somebody else get all the attention. It's sad that McCain sold out what he used to stand for. But it's even worse that Obama is getting away with it without anybody even noticing.

So why don't we put them under oath at the beginning of the campaign? That should be part of any campaign reform law - the day you announce you're running for office, you put your hand on a Bible, Koran, PDR (or other weighty tome with the magic power to make you tell the truth) and swear under penalty of law that you and anybody communicating on behalf of your campaign will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth until you are no longer running for office or have completed your service as an elected official. There can be exceptions for national security only.

If you're caught lying, you get prosecuted for perjury. Immediately. They can fast-track court cases for these crimes so the politicians are either quickly vindicated or jailed.

I think we'd get a lot more substantive debate about real issues if slandering each other was taken off the table. It would also be a lot more about what each candidate plans to do instead of talking about how badly the other one will screw things up.

If that puts some candidates at a disadvantage, then so be it. I see no reason why I should expect my employees - and that's exactly what they are - to lie to me as a matter of policy. It wouldn't be tolerated in any other line of work, and I don't want it in public service either.

I can't wait for the debates tonight. But I have a feeling that it's going to be just like the two before it, nothing new.

@#14

Not sure if you are familiar with the works of Garfield but he is not an ad guy, he is a writer for an ad rag, and there is a distinct difference. He has a history of speaking out and blasting people left and right for less than ethical work and has been praised for it.

As someone who left the agency side of things to move client side, I just want to point out that not all advertising people are morally corrupt (nor are all client-side marketing folks for that matter). Its just that since we happen to be in a line of work that is highly visible, those that give us a negative impression are able to gain even more visibility.

Every industry has its corruption, but not all of them have large media budgets to make it publicly known.

An oath might make is slightly more embarrassing to lie in your campaign, it's true. Who vets the truth of course is going to be a sticking point - the Liberal Media, or the Republican Shills?

I have said it before, and will say it again: people don't get to that level in national politics without being manipulative, detestable, craven little turds - who in a rational society would be put in a pillory in the town square and pelted with eggs. It's not their fault, it's just that we are easily manipulated and reward exactly those traits.

Seriously, how many times can you hear Obama say the same line about McCain's "sound economy" soundbite without getting the feeling that maybe you are being manipulated? The big difference between them is subtlety, after listening to "what my opponent doesn't seem to understand" over and over from McCain, it seems insane that anyone would not be able to see that for the playground-level debate tactic it is... but a lot of people don't. Don't even get me started on the massive falsehood that is the Campaign Promise.

Both are politicians, and as such, their primary goal is getting elected. That goal outranks virtually every ethical consideration, including telling the truth. The only thing that keeps them from even more blatant tactics is that at some level people notice and refuse to vote for them. So an Oath might add one little extra point of examination and condemnation, and that might tip the balance slightly in favor of being slightly more truthful. Which is why no one signed on - if it was really ineffective, there would be no downside and everyone would have jumped on the bandwagon.

Why all the fuss? Both candidates are the products of our system, which may be flawed but is still one of the best. Quotes will be taken out of context and arguments made about who said what, but the basic matter is that we will have our choice of two different visions of the proper role of government. We have two sets of candidates and we can look at their records, their decisions and their performances in public, then decide which best represents us, which will be best to lead America. We have had the chance to have input through the entire process, by contributing, by campaigning, by writing letters of support or criticism. Unlike most countries, we pick our leaders and are responsible for their decisions and actions. If you don't like the sytem or the choices, you have 4 years to try for a better choice next time. This time, it's our responsibility to decide who will be "the decider" for the next 4 years. Pick whoever you think is best, but don't moan about the rotten choice--after all, it has been your choice!

ALL politicians are lying scum, including these two jokers.

It cracks me up how everyone here feels the need to defend one dirtbag over another. It doesn't matter who wins. Nothing will change. The tax money they rip off from you will either continue this ridiculous war or be funneled in to useless social programs.

@27: Word.

I am less concerned with the strictness with which Obama sticks to the "truth" during a political campaign and much more with the fact that I think he'll get us out of Iraq, restore some much needed progressiveness to the tax code, help restore America's relationship with the international community simply by being intelligent and diplomatic to Bush's belligerent ignorance, try to help people like me who work full time but can't get health insurance that isn't prohibitively expensive, and make massive investments in alternative energy.

That and I get to watch the Republican douches cry into their soup because they're losing that badly.

The canard that "everybody lies, so they're all equally bad" really undermines the incremental nature of improvement. Even if Obama were only a teensy weensy bit better than MCain (I believe he is a significant improvement) then that should be enough.

Almost all communication that has the intent to persuade involves deception. Politicians lie. Corporations lie. Adverts lie. Other people lie.

This should not be surprising; it's not a new development. It's a small part of human nature, but writ large via modern media.

As the targets of this communication, we are all culpable (to varying degrees) for allowing it to work and rarely fighting against it. When we recognize deception, we're complacent about it. We accept it as a given - "Of course politicians lie." "Of course advertising claims aren't true."

At least there are a few outlets around for uncovering and publicizing deceptions, but this quickly becomes a Sisyphean task.

@27

Part of the real problem is 'both candidates'. The notion that two parties could possibly encompass the political space in any nation is absurd.

In order to truly function, any political system like ours needs at least three, and better 5 or 6 functioning, competitive parties.

In their absence, mindless partisanship such as we have seen for the last 20 years or so becomes the order of the day. Influence peddlers like lobbyists are able to more effectively pool their money and resources to influence the major parties, and we the people are left to vote for whichever of the two guys who we despise the least.

More parties does not guarantee justice, diversity or effective governance, but they do improve the odds of it.

Deviant at 13 -

I think the IT Savings comes from making sure the insurance companies are all using the same forms more or less - the savings is in clerical staff who will only need to know a handful of billing procedures rather than dozens and dozens. That's how I read it.

Okay, so during all public speeches the candidate should be attached to a lie detector which is attached to a car battery, so that each candidate controls the shocks he suffers by the lies he tells.

Now the speeches themselves will become more boring, but the act of watching them will become more entertaining. It might even encourage honest people to become candidates.

I want to be clear about my previous post, which may stike you as slightly cynical, or even jaded. The truth is, I do not align myself with posts like #28, I do not throw my hands up and drop out in frustration - but I do try hard to point out the deep and uncomfortable flaws with the current system. I certainly don't blame the politicians themselves for the environment they are forced to work in, but I also do not blame the general populace entirely either. Many forces, mostly financial, have gradually crafted the current situation, using the commonplace tools of manipulation, and far too many people have allowed themselves to be manipulated over the decades.

@31 has a good point about the 2-party system, as does Mr Garfield in the article about how lying has become perfectly normal for candidates. These are all aspects of a deeply broken system, one that became broken in gradual steps over many years.

I point out the flaws because we can't fix anything if we can't clearly see whats wrong. I advocate getting involved, getting angry about the lies and manipulation, thinking critically about what you are told, and not falling for either party's line. I advocate calling liars liars, but I also advocate voting. And writing your representative (perhaps to ask why the hell he isn't representing you?) and general activism. I advocate finding out just how screwed up it all is, getting mad about it, and tackling the problem with insight and careful analysis.

I mostly advocate becoming aware, not falling into the old canard that things are more or less fine and voting fixes everything, and looking out for those little erosions of dialog and reason and sanity that have long since begun the boiling process on our credulous froggy society. Awareness of the ways in which you can be lied to, manipulated and influenced is the first step in not being lied to, manipulated and influenced.

So face it, they are lying bastards. It's a lot easier to judge how things will go down if you realize that. Now what are you going to do to make sure their lies don't cause you harm or lead you into perdition?

Since this was in Ad Age, I got another idea. How 'bout the advertising industry getting some friggin' ethics? I know advertising's been about creative lying and deception since its inception, but I think many of our country's problems today can be traced back to marketing run amok -- sub-prime lending comes to mind. My favorite right now is the TV commercial that says "Eat all you want and still lose weight" backed up by "We couldn't say that on television if it wasn't true."

Indeed. How about advertisers also taking such an oath, and somehow having it enforced? Quit calling the kettle black and be the change you want to see.

MDH,

Even if the insurance companies and hospitals can reduce administrative staff and associated costs, how does that mean premiums and copays go down? Margins could go up (or go down less quickly in the case of most hospitals).