As regular readers know, I’ve been pushing Rudy Giuliani’s serial exaggerations pretty hard, hoping against hope that traditional news outlets would notice the same trend. I started making the connection in July, but reporters said we’d have to wait until the new year before news outlets showed any interest.
With that in mind, seeing this story in the NYT today was a real treat.
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.” In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York “had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years.” When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”
All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record. (emphasis added)
…An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light.
Be still my heart — actual, fact-checking journalism. About a Republican, no less.
Clip it, save it, savor it, send it around to your friends, email it to reporters covering the campaigns. This is one of those rare stories that reads like a piece from a functioning press corps that cares about accountability.
Most of the individual exaggerations that the NYT notes will seem pretty familiar to regular Carpetbagger readers, but take a look at how the Giuliani campaign and its allies rationalize his habit of repeatedly making false claims about himself and his record.
Aides to Mr. Giuliani dismiss questions about his use of statistics as nitpicking, arguing that no one can dispute the big points he makes by using the statistics: that crime dropped significantly during his tenure, say, or that he worked to restrain spending in New York.
“The mayor likes detail, and uses it frequently on the campaign trail in ways the other candidates don’t,” said Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Mr. Giuliani. “And at the end of the day, he is making points that are true.” […]
Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who once worked for Mr. Giuliani, said he doubted that the issue would hurt him politically.
“When he talks about New York, people see it,” Mr. Luntz said of Mr. Giuliani, “and they feel it, and if a number isn’t quite right, or is off by a small amount, nobody will care, because it rings true to them.”
It’s eerily reminiscent of Stephen Colbert-like rhetoric — it doesn’t matter what is true; what matters is what feels true.
When Al Gore was falsely charged with being a serial exaggerator, the media and Republicans concluded he was unfit for office. When Giuliani is caught repeatedly exaggerating details because his record isn’t good enough to stand on his own, critics are being “nitpicky” about claims that “feel” true.
Of course, Greg Sargent raises a good point: now that the NYT has helped bring this issue to the fore, will it become part of the campaign narrative?
When is Rudy’s chronic mendacity going to become part of the pundit narrative of Campaign 2008? When is this constant dissembling going to be discussed by political commentators as indicative of large flaws in Rudy’s character, just as pundits are so quick to do about Dem candidates on the strength of far less than this?
The evidence is now right there on the front page of The Times for all to see — and as an added bonus, Rudy’s own backers are confirming that they don’t see a problem with his chronic fibbing. So there’s simply no longer any excuse for commentators to ignore this.
And yet, I have a hunch they’re going to try….