One of the ways that Rudy Giuliani has tried to prove himself the true heir to the Bush administration legacy is to develop the strikingly new lying technique of "flooding the zone." Of course, "flooding the zone" is a football term for the tactic of sending several receivers into one part of the field. In that way, the offense expects that one of the receivers will be open. Rudy Giuliani's approach to lying can be described as flooding the zone because he's so prolific as a liar.
Here's a catalogue of Rudy's lies from TPM:
But just as importantly, Giuliani keeps undermining his own credibility on all policy issues by exaggerating to the point of comedy. He can't just say he spent time at Ground Zero; he has to exaggerate to say he spent as much time (if not more) than the rescue, recovery, and cleanup workers who spent a year sifting through human remains and rubble. He can't just say he's interested in counter-terrorism; he has to exaggerate to say he's been "studying Islamic terrorism for 30 years." He can't just say he's committed to promoting adoption over abortion; he has to exaggerate his record as mayor. He can't just he cut taxes in NYC; he has to exaggerate his record to include tax cuts he opposed (he even counted one cut twice). The guy can't even release a list of congressional endorsements without exaggerating the numbers.Steve Benen of TPM thinks that Giuliani is "undermining his own credibility" with all these seemingly unnecessary lies. But that's not the case at all. Right-wing activists enjoy, expect, and even demand these kinds of lies because they interpret Giuliani's contempt for truth as an indication of contempt for the mainstream media, liberal audiences, and the Democratic opposition. One way or another, demonstrations of such contempt are required of Republican candidates.
There are several things that are ingenious about Giuliani's flooding the zone with lies. First, lying so often gives Giuliani the chance to cover up some of the more unsavory aspects of his record. Liberal media outlets like TPM and Salon might catch Rudy lying about the time spent at Ground Zero. But when the liberal media is hashing over that lie, they're not talking about Rudy's marrying his cousin, Rudy's use of the Emergency Command Center as a love nest for his mistress, or the inhumane way he treated second wife Donna Hanover during their divorce.
That's a plus for Rudy.
Flooding the zone with lies also means that individual revelations of dishonesty won't be so damaging. Because there's so many more lies coming down the pike, discussion of any particular lie only lasts for 24-48 hours. Rudy's tendency to "exaggerate to the point of comedy" doesn't hurt him because it's impossible to pay much attention to any particular dishonesty.
Another advantage for Rudy is that a few of his lies might get accepted as the truth. Given how hard it is to keep up with Rudy's dishonesty, the media might end up accepting Rudy's exaggerations of his tax-cutting record or his congressional endorsements as "conventional wisdom." Assuming that Rudy's going to have bigger and better lies in the future, the shear frequency of his fibs means that there's a chance that some of those lies will really help him.
"Flooding the zone" with lies is such an effective technique for Rudy that I wouldn't be surprised to see Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson to adapt it pretty soon. Both of them have a long way to go before they show that they're really serious about winning.
Posts
41 comments:
This type of critique might actually make people pay attention, IF you cared in the least whether your own people do it. As is, it is nothing other than partisan pot shots.
Given your ability to massage the truth, complaining about somebody else doing the same thing is more than a touch ironic.
a few of his lies might get accepted as the truth.
So all this is because you're upset about him appropriating the entirety of the leftist approach to establishing truth?
Hypocrisy is wrong when the other side is doing it, I guess.
What is truely pathetic about 2008 Presidential candidate Rudy is how hard he is trying to run...from NYC Mayor Rudy. I guess I should like him but I don't because he is such a fraud. Rudy Giuliani is a liberal. He's a "Rockefeller Republican to the tenth power." Here are some items I discovered in preparing a comment here.
On Taxes:
"When I ran for Mayor both times, I was asked very, very often to do the following:
Pledge that you will never raise taxes. I refused to do that. Pledge that you will lower taxes. I refused to do that. (New York Times, October 25, 1994.)
On Liberalism:
"Mr. Giuliani solicited the Liberal Party nomination, he actually says, partly because many of his friends and relatives would have been too embarrassed to vote for a Republican. Mr. Giuliani campaigned for Bobby Kennedy and says he voted for George McGovern. His campaign staff
includes at least one former Mike Dukakis aide. He told a TV interviewer, “I do not look to see what the catechism of conservatism says about how to solve a problem.”
(Editorial:The Wall Street Journal, August 1, 1989.)
On GLBT Issues:
"National Republicans can lump it if they don’t like his new domestic-partners bill, Mayor Giuliani said yesterday.'I really haven’t thought about what the impact is on Republican politics or national politics or Democratic politics,' Giuliani said. The bill he submitted to the City Council would extend the benefits city
agencies must grant to gay and lesbian couples. 'I’m proud of it,' Giuliani said of the bill. 'I think it puts New York City ahead
of other places in the country.'"
(New York Daily News, May 13, 1998.)
On Immigration:
"Once again taking sharp exception with the dominant conservative wing of his own party, Mr. Giuliani said in an interview that the proposed crackdown on illegal immigrants was deliberately intended to play to the public’s worst fears of foreigners and did not take into consideration the positive effects of immigrants on cities like New York." (New York Times, August 23, 1995.)
On Ronald Reagan:
"...in his primary campaign, Mr. Giuliani noted frequently that he was supported by the liberal wing of the Republican Party and maintained that he never embraced Mr. Reagan's broad conservative agenda. On one occasion his campaign staff released a copy of a letter he wrote in June 1984, as United States Attorney in Manhattan, in which he appeared
to oppose efforts by the Administration to improperly deny Social Security disability benefits to some recipients." (New York Times, October 11, 1989.)
And this is just a sampling. I do not pretend to know which Rudy is the real Rudy though I must say I like the old one better than the one I see spouting extremist right-wing dogma now.
I can tell you that if there were a Democratic candidate who once sounded as Conservative as Rudy and now sounds more Progressive, I would not believe for a moment that this person was/is sincere. I find it hard to believe that Rudy is particularly sincere.
You folks on the right might want to think about that too.
Rudy Giuliani is a liberal.
Which would make his exageration problem so much less shocking.
If Rudy Giuliani is a liberal, why do you dislike him so? Apparently, it has nothing to do with his policies, and all about which party he chooses to be in.
For me, it has everything to do with his espousal of the Bush domestic terrorist policies (which I abhor) and his agreement with the silly policy of his preemptive war.
Since I find those two policies the most reprehensible of the entire Bush administration and Rudy combines those with the ego and authoritarian bent of Dick Cheney, he scares the living hell out of me.
I guess, he would see that as a success, since he is running on president by claiming we should be scared and look for the strongman to keep us safe.
I would vote for anyone running, besides Guiliani
Well, if there's anything worthy of abhorence it's got to be those pesky efforts to break up terror plots on U.S. soil. I mean, who are we to aggressively prosecute people just for planning to bomb civilian targets.
does ef stand for reductio ad asurdum
if timb stands for absurdum, then yes.
It's so great to see the right resort to it's old work horse.
ef said "Well, if there's anything worthy of abhorence it's got to be those pesky efforts to break up terror plots on U.S."
What are you kidding me or something? You really think the right has made the country safer? Do you not remember the August 6th 2001 PDB?
I mean come on here, President Clinton actually thwarted the Millennium terrorist plot. President Bush can only lay claim to stopping a few half hearted, dim witted, idiots from trying to blow something up. Attack a military base? Really? As pizza delivery guys? Those people were idiots.
The Republican party has done nothing to make us safer, in fact with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security America was made weaker. Just look at Katrina, what if that had been a terrorist attack instead of a natural disaster. How would we have performed then? If you say better than what's the difference. People still died, but the difference would have been that if Islamic jihadists had attacked the city, the federal government could have acquired major political capital for acting quickly.
You can't beat a dead horse ef, the right may be more militant minded, but that doesn't mean a thing in terms of our actual safety. All of the Cowboy posturing President Bush has done served no other purpose than to alienate us from the rest of the world. He had to pull out of the ICC so that his minions wouldn't be prosecuted for international crimes.
So you tell me, ef, exactly how are we safer? How does the right keep us from getting attacked, and do you actually believe the propaganda that suggests the left isn't defense minded? The majority of military veterans in congress are Democrats. Stop drinking the kool aid.
President Clinton actually thwarted the Millennium terrorist plot. President Bush can only lay claim to stopping a few half hearted, dim witted, idiots from trying to blow something up. Attack a military base? Really? As pizza delivery guys? Those people were idiots.
This paragraph neatly sums up all that is wrong with Leftist thought. President Clinton did not thwart the millenium threat, a border guard that witnessed suspicious behavior did. President Clinton's CIA, according to recent reports, never even had a plan in place on how to pursue OBL. Is the idea of posing as a delivery guy so absurd? Box cutters were all it took to put their plan in action on 9/11. Katrina - if you placed the same blame on the people most responsible, Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagins, I might be willing to discuss the failures of this administration. However, if you are laying this at Pres. Bush's feet alone, then there is no point. What does the number of veterans in your congressional delegation prove?
Hey JD. In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is a partisan blog.
There is a difference between being partisan and outright lying. Maybe not to your side of the aisle.
Jd- President Clinton received a PDB that informed him of the likelihood of terrorist attacks on New Years eve 1999. Instead of not reacting (like Bush did with the August 6th PDB) Clinton launched an investigation and heightened the alert status of security and law enforcement agencies. These actions had a hand in thwarting the plots. Bush did nothing and we were attacked.
I'm not entirely sure what planet you live on here, but the right has been thoroughly debunked for it's dishonesty and propaganda. You may seriously want to look at things objectively before accusing people of lying. I mean, honestly, you are the kettle.
I mean, honestly, you are the kettle.
Would that make you the pot that enjoys hypocritically pointing out the kettle is indeed black?
It's pithy dry wit like your last two comments, ef, that make me wonder how you missed being an action hero. I mean, insight and comedy rolled into just a few words....BRILLIANT
Circular argumentation with just a dash of guilt ridden redirection. The right is always good for a chuckle or two. You know therapy can help with your identity crisis ef.
It's interesting that JD says "There is a difference between being partisan and outright lying" but doesn't provide any examples of the lying.
Maybe he's busy at the Al Gonzales wake?
Maybe, I teared up when I heard the news myself. Poor Gonzo he was such a nice and honest Attorney General. Certain to go down in the history books as one of the best!
Maybe someday I can heal from this horrible wound inflicted upon me by his departure. If not, I can always become an alcoholic.
JD, who plays at being much dumber than he really is, often finds a point in a contentious discussion where he is presented with uncomfortable facts. At that point, this fine litigator seeks solace in the thoughts of any number of right wing bloggers and he attacks those facts as lies.
Not to bang about it too much, but the thread where I pointed out how a blogger threatened me was duly passed along to that blogger (who then attempted to revise his statements) and after the revision I was called a liar.
It's what he does.
Scott Sparks - I am assuming that you have no experience whatsoever in the intelligence community. Can you get your mind around the difference between a PDB warning of an action targeting a specific date, and a PDB stating that OBL wants to target the US?
Ric - Here is a lie. You claim that people that oppose same sex marriage are homophobic. That is a gross generalization, and a lie. You claim that people that opposed Affirmative Action are racist. Again, a gross generalization, and a lie.
BTW, I could not give a flying fuck that Alberto Gonzalez decided to resign, so again, your assumptions are wrong. No surprise. I do expect that nominating Bill Clinton would be the only way to get somebody confirmed by Leahy, Schumer, Durbing, and their ilk.
Aren't you misusing the words "wrong" and "lie". Ric would have to address this, himself, but a lie is something the purveyor knows to be untrue. For instance, I think rightwingsparkle is a kook and a bit shallow. You might believe I'm wrong, but it's not a lie, if I believe it.
Watch your diction, JD
No, tim. When confronted with evidence that he was wrong, he continues to make the same mistake, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. He may have been wrong initially, but now it is a lie. Just look at the most recent post for evidence of this.
But, Guiliani's not a liar?
Does that make it accpetable for Professor Caric(ature)? It makes the good professor have a separate standard for those that he agress with, as opposed to those that he disagrees with. If it services The Narrative, lie with impunity. If it does not, whine and screech about how evil it is to lie.
It does seem like Giuliani's positions seem to be quite flexible, given the politics at the time, which is yet another reason why he is not likely to get the nod in the primaries. On the other hand, the Left should appreciate the nuance in his growing and adapting over time, to new ways of thinking.
Here's something I want to get people's thoughts on: Jd, ef, Dr. Caric, Scott, Todd, anyone....
In Indiana, we hold our primary in May, so no matter who JD and I like, our votes counts for nada. I like Edwards, but I seriously can't imagine him at the top of a ticket come November. Ef and Jd, save the recriminations for another time and let's be engaging, instead of argumentative.
Who would you vote for, right now, subject to changing at your whim, in the primaries
Fred Thompson, with former Rep. John Kacic as VP. Given the candidates available, that is who I would choose. Ideal? Nope.
Actually, I would probably vote in the Dem primary for Edwards, in the hopes that he would be the Dem candidate in the general election.
Would you be inclined toward Newt if he got in?
Nope. I do not particularly think he is a very good person. Brilliant mind, and politically astute. But not electable, as the Left and the media have managed to make him out to be some kind of bogeyman, like Rove, rather than someone with differing political views.
JD, by the way, Robin Winston sent me a letter the other day inviting me to a lunch for folks supporting Edwards. As an impoverished law clerk/student, the $8 I gave is about as much as intend to, but I thought maybe you would want to put your money where your vote might go?
Robin should save the postage and not bother sending me a letter. I already get the emails requesting that I send $6 for Grandma's pie receipe, and other such silly stuff. Presidential material, that.
But, maybe, we could make it a date? Seriously, how many chances is an evening student with three kids and a less than 4.0 GPA gonna get to see the inside of Barnes and Thornburg? You can foot the bill (it's not event hat far from 29th Street!) and we can show up together and do this partisan dance for the Edwards folks.
Then, we'll go to a Thompson fund raiser later and you can make fun of me! It would be a hoot.
After all, politics ends at some point and governance begins, right? We'd be the funniest thing since the Capital Steps....scratch that, we'd be the funniest thing in the history of politics.
What is at 29th Street?
Barnes and Thornburg is pretty impressive. I guess even the big boys can be drawn over to the dark side. I guess the 2 Americas are good for something in the Edwards campaign. Did he get rid of his trucks and SUV's yet?
Don't know, but you'd think he would after he said he was going to ask all Americans to do so not two days ago. That would quite the black eye!
As far as B & T, I doubt they're in all the way. Shockingly, several plaintiff's firms are supporting Edwards, but Barnes and Thornburg have more to gain from supporting both sides of that issue. First, although Edwards wouldn't kill them (can you see him signing Tort Reform?), but secondly, this is still Indiana and there's a 75% chance come 2009 the Senate will be R, the Governor will be an R, and the House will be a toss-up. One doesn't want to be on the wrong side of that contest! I imagine it's just a couple of partners
Yeah, I could not believe my eyes when I saw that some plaintiff firms would be supporting the man that channels the dead in front of a jury. I hope he sells off those huge gas guzzlers of his right quick. I wonder how many cars he has ?
I imagine there's a reporter from the Washington Times asking that question right now
And his hypocrisy will not matter. Personally, I wish I could find a way to get $50,000 to lecture people about poverty. More power to him, I say. Good work, if you can find it.
Your first step would be to care about pverty in America, as more than "Gee, it's too bad there's a poor kid in America." You might then want to have an idea or two about what to do about it, and, then folks like me, who do care, might be willing to listen to you. Frankly , the criticism you level on this issue is immature. To be dedicated to poverty issues means one works for free? Are you a socialist now? No one says the President should move to Baghdad if he want to talk about the war, but one can't take money for speaking?
Seems a bit odd.
To summarize the Right's critque on Edwards: to crusade against the growing inequality in America requires bad hair, the speaker to be impoverished, the speaker to live in a hovel and be unemployed (or at least work for free)?
The last person who met that criteria was hung on a cross until dead by the Romans.
Meanwhile, the awesome strides made in social justice in this country by rich men as President: LBJ, FDR, RFK, these are ignored and derided?
So, one can't be rich and one can't be poor...or is one can't ask for your money to help others?
And, yes, by the way, when reading that post, you should hum America the Beautiful and picture me standing in front of the American flag...
I am not criticizing him, timmah. I want to know how I can get $50,000 in taxpayer dollars for a speech at a local college.
Caring is all that is required? I was not always well off. My parents were by no means wealthy. Just because someone cares means exactly nothing. That is a common meme of the left, that they care more.
Despite all of their caring, how have all of those programs implements by LBJ, FDR, RFK done at getting rid of the poor. Frnakly, it is disingenuous to claim to want to eradicate poverty. There will always be a lowest 25% of wage earners, no matter how much they earn.
Does that mean the converse, that we should let people like you (and I don't mean that in the mean way, I mean it in the you certainly have a stake in that argument) sit on piles of cash created by the sweat of others?
No, you don't believe that. So, then, there must be a third way. A way to ameliorate the worst parts of the market economy (the lack of opportunity people with no health care, no money, bad schools, etc). A way to improve the lot of those bottom 25%
I not only think there is, I think it's important, and doesn't cost nearly as much a war. I also think an more redistributive society is a fairer society.
[Then again, I don't think it's right for bloggers to post the personal information of their commenters. But, I'm funny that way. I saved that on my blog/log too, as it once again demonstrates the fact he was threatening me, that he has a pattern of it, and he is a vindictive, strange little man.]
Post a Comment