The Tuesday Paul Krugman column helpfully runs through some of Bush's top lies (job market improving, Kerry is going to take away the power to make your own healthcare choices, blah blah blah), but it does something even better at the end:
By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.
Yes, there are lots of people out there who end up saying, "Well, Candidate A says one thing, Candidate B says another — Who the hell knows? It's all just opinion and bullshit anyway." Then they throw up their hands and vote for an ex-bodybuilder or something. Will they get this message? Probably not... which is a real shame, if not a crime.
