Lies, Sighs and
By Paul Krugman
York Times" -- -- In Tuesday’s Republican
presidential debate, Mitt Romney completely misrepresented how
we ended up in Iraq. Later, Mike Huckabee mistakenly claimed
that it was Ronald Reagan’s birthday.
Guess which remark The Washington Post identified as the “gaffe
of the night”?
Folks, this is serious. If early campaign reporting is any
guide, the bad media habits that helped install the worst
president ever in the White House haven’t changed a bit.
You may not remember the presidential debate of Oct. 3, 2000, or
how it was covered, but you should. It was one of the worst
moments in an election marked by news media failure as serious,
in its way, as the later failure to question Bush administration
claims about Iraq.
Throughout that debate, George W. Bush made blatantly misleading
statements, including some outright lies — for example, when he
declared of his tax cut that “the vast majority of the help goes
to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.” That
should have told us, right then and there, that he was not a man
to be trusted.
But few news reports pointed out the lie. Instead, many news
analysts chose to critique the candidates’ acting skills. Al
Gore was declared the loser because he sighed and rolled his
eyes — failing to conceal his justified disgust at Mr. Bush’s
dishonesty. And that’s how Mr. Bush got within chad-and-butterfly
range of the presidency.
Now fast forward to last Tuesday. Asked whether we should have
invaded Iraq, Mr. Romney said that war could only have been
avoided if Saddam “had opened up his country to I.A.E.A.
inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were
no weapons of mass destruction.” He dismissed this as an
Except that Saddam did, in fact, allow inspectors in. Remember
Hans Blix? When those inspectors failed to find nonexistent
W.M.D., Mr. Bush ordered them out so that he could invade. Mr.
Romney’s remark should have been the central story in news
reports about Tuesday’s debate. But it wasn’t.
There wasn’t anything comparable to Mr. Romney’s rewritten
history in the Democratic debate two days earlier, which was
altogether on a higher plane. Still, someone should have called
Hillary Clinton on her declaration that on health care, “we’re
all talking pretty much about the same things.” While the other
two leading candidates have come out with plans for universal
(John Edwards) or near-universal (Barack Obama) health coverage,
Mrs. Clinton has so far evaded the issue. But again, this went
unmentioned in most reports.
By the way, one reason I want health care specifics from Mrs.
Clinton is that she’s received large contributions from the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Will that deter her
from taking those industries on?
Back to the debate coverage: as far as I can tell, no major news
organization did any fact-checking of either debate. And
post-debate analyses tended to be horse-race stuff mingled with
theater criticism: assessments not of what the candidates said,
but of how they “came across.”
Thus most analysts declared Mrs. Clinton the winner in her
debate, because she did the best job of delivering sound bites —
including her Bush-talking-point declaration that we’re safer
now than we were on 9/11, a claim her advisers later tried to
explain away as not meaning what it seemed to mean.
Similarly, many analysts gave the G.O.P. debate to Rudy Giuliani
not because he made sense — he didn’t — but because he sounded
tough saying things like, “It’s unthinkable that you would leave
Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on
Look, debates involving 10 people are, inevitably, short on
extended discussion. But news organizations should fight the
shallowness of the format by providing the facts — not embrace
it by reporting on a presidential race as if it were a
high-school popularity contest.
For if there’s one thing I hope we’ve learned from the calamity
of the last six and a half years, it’s that it matters who
becomes president — and that listening to what candidates say
about substantive issues offers a much better way to judge
potential presidents than superficial character judgments. Mr.
Bush’s tax lies, not his surface amiability, were the true guide
to how he would govern.
And I don’t know if this country can survive another four years
of Bush-quality leadership.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton
University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most
recent book is The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
those including personal
attacks and profanity are
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
Well promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
Send Page To a Friend
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)