Earlier this week, at the latest debate for Republican presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani attacked Hillary Clinton with a line from his stump speech: “The free market is our … greatest assets. The leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America. I mean, just get an idea of where that philosophy comes from.”
Now, Clinton didn’t say that. He probably knows she didn’t say that. But for the candidate who tends to exaggerate almost every claim he makes, Giuliani can’t seem to help himself. Exaggeration just comes too naturally to him.
Of course, he might make more of an effort, if these constant embellishments became politically problematic, but so far, the media hasn’t called him on it. Indeed, his quote about Clinton was widely reported after the debate, though few outlets bothered to tell the public his claim wasn’t true.
Greg Sargent noticed that Washington Post political reporter Lois Romano was asked about this during an online chat with readers yesterday.
New York: Hi, Lois. In the GOP debate earlier this week, Rudy Giuliani said: “The leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America. I mean, just get an idea of where that philosophy comes from.” Rudy uses this line on Hillary frequently. But as has been conclusively proven, it’s an almost comically dishonest distortion of what Hillary actually said in a 1996 interview with Brian Lamb. In that interview, Hillary quoted another author saying that the unfettered free market had been radically disruptive, not destructive, and actually went on to praise free markets.
My question, though, is this. If Al Gore can be painted as a serial liar and exaggerator by the media for things he didn’t actually say, why has Giuliani so far gotten a pass on the lies he’s actually spouting publicly?
Lois Romano: He hasn’t been really challenged on every word yet. That will come. Right now, there are so many people in the race trying to get footing, and the media is trying to illuminate facts about all of them. As the field starts to winnow, you will see more and more scrutiny of what candidates say and do, and what they have done or said in the past…. (emphasis added)
It was a good question, but the answer leaves much to be desired.
A leading GOP candidate — arguably, the frontrunner — can’t go a day without making some kind of serious exaggeration about his record or that of his rivals, but the media is content to let scrutiny come later? At what point will political reporters deem it worthwhile to start fact-checking? Why is it that voters (i.e., news consumers) should hear Giuliani’s claims now, but hear about the truth about those claims at some later, undetermined point?
Put it this way: what are reporters waiting for, exactly?
Regular readers may know, but I’ve been keeping track of some (not all) of Giuliani’s more obvious exaggerations, at least as they regard his own record. I haven’t had to look too hard for content.
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 say he cut taxes in NYC; he has to exaggerate his record to include tax cuts he opposed (he even counted one cut twice). When it comes to Giuliani’s record on budget surpluses, it’s more of the same. The guy can’t even release a list of congressional endorsements without exaggerating the numbers.
Romano’s passivity notwithstanding, this is the point at which campaign narratives are established. Now is when voters are starting to evaluate candidates. If a leading presidential hopeful has a problem telling the truth without embellishments, it seems like the kind of thing that deserves attention before primary voters head to the polls.
Apparently, though, we’re supposed to wait for scrutiny, as if reporters will write stories in February about candidate exaggerations from October. Why am I not optimistic?