Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
I think people are sometimes too quick to call their political opponents dishonest. In the cases to which I'm referring, the accusers might well be sincere in making the allegation. But sometimes it's not easy to tell if someone is 1) mistaken 2) lying to others, 3) lying to himself or 4) just so steeped in his ideology that he is blinded to the truth (there is probably some overlap here).
I know I have been accused by liberals of lying when I was telling the truth (I hope I always tell the truth). Yet I'm convinced that in a number of those cases, the accuser genuinely thought I was lying, mainly because he had a radically different perspective or a different understanding of the facts.
I don't think we should accuse others of things, including lying, lightly. Bearing false witness, to say the least, is despicable behavior. That's why I was particularly incensed at Democrats during the Bush years for concocting an elaborate scheme to depict George W. Bush as a liar for alleging Iraq had WMD -- a lie compounded by their own complicity in making the same allegation while having access to essentially the same intelligence. That indignation led me to write my third book, chronicling what I believed was the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.
In my most recent book I mince no words in calling Obama a liar. I generally try not to be a bomb thrower, though I'm sure some would disagree. But I didn't accuse Obama of lying lightly or for purposes of sensationalism. I did so to make a point that I didn't believe could be made as effectively without using the precise term. Before leveling such charges, I consider whether I really believe the person is lying or whether one of the other above stated possibilities could apply.
For example, was Obama lying when he told George Stephanopoulos, quite emphatically, that his mandatory health insurance coverage provision was not a tax? His administration has certainly contradicted his position in defending the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the provision. My friend Peter Wehner seems to believe Obama was not telling the truth, and Peter is about as fair and cautious as one can be in such matters. I agree. I believe Obama will say whatever he has to say and do whatever he has to do to move his agenda forward. That's the Alinsky way.
All of which brings me to the little article that led to this post. Sen. Harry Reid is accusing those who have legally challenged Obamacare as being part of "the latest effort to role back rules that bar insurance companies from abusive practices like denying health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions."
Now I suppose it's possible that Reid truly believes insurance companies who deny health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions are abusive. But if he does believe it, he's guilty at the very least of extreme intellectual negligence.
Barack Obama, you might recall, in his Alinskyite tirade against insurance companies in route to cramming Obamacare down America's throat, made the same claim, i.e., that insurance companies were discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions by denying them coverage. He chose civil rights language to demonize them, just as he falsely accused them of making obscene profits. But we can be pretty sure Obama knowingly lied about his destructive charge because later, when pressing for the mandatory coverage provision, he made the statement that insurance companies couldn't possibly cover pre-existing conditions unless we had mandatory coverage because they'd go bankrupt.
Well, he knew there was not mandatory coverage when he was excoriating them for denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and therefore he knew they couldn't grant coverage without going bankrupt. He also knew, especially as a lawyer, that they denied coverage as a matter of their contracts with the individuals and their employers. Therefore, he knew they were not discriminating in denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Yet he made the claim anyway. How can we conclude but that he was lying? In fact, we later learned that one of the things motivating him to such contemptible behavior was his grudge against insurance companies for denying coverage to his sick mother.
So, I ask you: is it plausible that Harry Reid truly believes insurance companies are abusing people with pre-existing conditions by denying them coverage? I am very skeptical, especially in light of his looseness in bearing false witness against others in the past. Remember his statements about Dubyah to school children?
So, you tell me: is Harry lying? Intellectually negligent? Something else?
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
To parse a hackneyed movie reference, he had me at demagogue..
Jul '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
David, I often ponder this question about Leftists. Is it possible they really believe what they're saying? I think in some instances - particularly when they're excoriating the rich - that they actually do.
But mostly, I think they're just following Hitler's advice to tell the Big Lie and tell it often.
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Excellent post, David. In many of these cases, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that our liberal friends are either being willingly disingenuous or so intellectually slipshod that they're failing to make even basic logical connections.
A similar example came up during the White House press briefing today, when Robert Gibbs was getting deluged with questions about the ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Gibbs continually fell back on the justification that the individual mandate was intended to counteract the negative externality generated when patients without insurance end up in the ER and the costs get passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. Fair enough. But aren't these people getting treatment despite their lack of insurance the same ones whose penurious deaths in the street provided the justification for expanding coverage in the first place?
Edited on Dec 13, 2010 at 8:14pmOct '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
David--you assume that they even care about facts and the truth. Reality is an abstraction that can be manipulated. Only the agenda of government control over every human action, and the creation of a utopia on earth matters in their statements and maneuvers. Even the unintended consequences are ignored, or carelessly described as "the program wasn't big enough, we didn't spend enough money."
May '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Since when are liberals in favor of government regulation of obscenity?
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Very provocative--I clicked on Ricochet intending merely to skim for a moment before getting back to work, but you trapped me, David.
My view of the way the corruption works? In a lot of cases--including, I'd guess, that of Harry Reid--it goes something like this: 1.) The person in question is deeply convinced of the rightness of his overall position. 2.) He'll tell what he considers a mere white lie or half-truth because he believes that doing so will score points politically. He believes he's not doing anything seriously wrong--politics, he tells himself, is as given to overstatement, as is, say, television advertising, and everyone knows it--and he's entirely justified because he's fighting for the general good, as we've established in point 1. 3.) The trouble is, of course, that by speaking half-truths repeatedly, the politician in question eventually, and by tiny degrees, loses his ability to distinguish half-truth from truth, eventually coming to believe his own little lies.
As my old boss in the Reagan speechwriting shop, Tony Dolan, used to insist, what we say out loud matters.
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Kenneth: David, I often ponder this question about Leftists. Is it possible they really believe what they're saying? I think in some instances - particularly when they're excoriating the rich - that they actually do.
But mostly, I think they're just following Hitler's advice to tell the Big Lie and tell it often. · Dec 13 at 7:59pm
Yes, Kenneth, that's what I mean. Kind of where I am. Who would have ever thunk you or I would be squishes? LOL.
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Peter Robinson: VMy view of the way the corruption works? In a lot of cases--including, I'd guess, that of Harry Reid--it goes something like this: 1.) The person in question is deeply convinced of the rightness of his overall position. 2.) He'll tell what he considers a mere white lie or half-truth because he believes that doing so will score points politically. He believes he's not doing anything seriously wrong--politics, he tells himself, is as given to overstatement, as is, say, television advertising, and everyone knows it--and he's entirely justified because he's fighting for the general good, as we've established in point 1. 3.) The trouble is, of course, that by speaking half-truths repeatedly, the politician in question eventually, and by tiny degrees, loses his ability to distinguish half-truth from truth, eventually coming to believe his own little lies.
As my old boss in the Reagan speechwriting shop, Tony Dolan, used to insist, what we say out loud matters.
Yes, Peter, and then there are those cases where I know they're lying as with their actual lies about Dubyah's alleged WMD lies.
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Don't forget that a major contributor to all those "pre-existing conditions" out there is the government-created system of employer-provided health insurance. Every time you change jobs you need to change your insurance contract. If you become unemployed, start a small business or otherwise wind up in the individual insurance market, congratulations--you now have a good chance at having a coverage-denying "pre-existing condition" on your medical record (large employer plans will cover you anyway but individual plans can't because of the adverse selection problem).
Gee, for some reason I don't have this sort of problem with my auto, life or homeowner's insurance.
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
George Savage: Don't forget that a major contributor to all those "pre-existing conditions" out there is the government-created system of employer-provided health insurance. Every time you change jobs you need to change your insurance contract. If you become unemployed, start a small business or otherwise wind up in the individual insurance market, congratulations--you now have a good chance at having a coverage-denying "pre-existing condition" on your medical record (large employer plans will cover you anyway but individual plans can't because of the adverse selection problem).
Gee, for some reason I don't have this sort of problem with my auto, life or homeowner's insurance. · Dec 13 at 8:54pm
George, I won't forget that as the government's "well-intentioned" changes to the tax laws designed to incentivize employers to provide employees health care is, in my view, one of the major factors that contributed to the erosion of market forces in health care in this country. And rectifying it to eliminate this incentive is one of the numerous market-based reforms I support.
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Troy Senik: Excellent post, David. In many of these cases, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that our liberal friends are either being willingly disingenuous or so intellectually slipshod that they're failing to make even basic logical connections.
A similar example came up during the White House press briefing today, when Robert Gibbs was getting deluged with questions about the ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Gibbs continually fell back on the justification that the individual mandate was intended to counteract the negative externality generated when patients without insurance end up in the ER and the costs get passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. Fair enough. But aren't these people getting treatment despite their lack of insurance the same ones whose penurious deaths in the street provided the justification for expanding coverage in the first place? · Dec 13 at 8:04pm
Edited on Dec 13 at 08:14 pm
Good point, Troy. Gibbs' response, though I missed it, sounds like a non sequitur.
Nov '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
"Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?"
Could you possibly have come up with a more rhetorical question?
Sep '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Why do you think there is a fundament difference between the pseudo-truth-telling(lying) of O, Reid and John McCain? The latter seems to have done a 180 on immigration and still manages, with a straight face, to maintain he hasn’t. A politician is not telling the truth-This is worth writing about?
Sep '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Liberal Jim,
Ordinarily, I would wonder what you mean by liberal in your name as it is a pretty broad term used and abused, but the comment above is one of the classic arguments a liberal of a certain kind is guaranteed to make, usually before any other argument is made.
A politician not telling the truth... this worth writing about?
Yes it is, Jim. Yes it is. If you really believe this, you should quit reading about politics altogether. I'm serious. You are wasting your $3.47 per month. Why, you could get a latte at the flagship Starbucks for that and save time reading (and commenting) as well.
By this I don't want you to go away, please don't misunderstand, I'm just calling your liberal bluff.
There are many things I personally don't like about John McCain including his 180 degree (sort of) turn around on immigration, but it may be more an example of putting his finger to the wind and realizing his former plans are impractical considering the political realities. This of course is another thing typical of politicians, but it isn't a falsehood on the same magnitude.
(continued)
Edited on Dec 14, 2010 at 6:12amSep '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
Please read the first 2 or 3 paragraphs of this post and then determine in which category John Mc Cain belongs in your opinion. Mr. Limbaugh is making a much bigger point.
It is either beyond your ability to make the distinction, or you are simply acting as a petulant partisan, trying to change the subject and making dismissive pronouncements.
Jun '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
LJ - Ron Ziegler, Nixon's Press Secretary defined it for all time: "This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative."
May '10
Re: Harry Reid: Does He Have an Ounce of Integrity?
The funny thing is that even when someone like Reid or Obama lies constantly, people so strongly desire truth that they are willing to afford such a person trust when a particular speech or statement is remotely believable.
More important that these politicians' willingness to lie about health insurance is their willingness to coerce. Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is like forcing a hardware store to sell an unprofitable lawn care item because it already sells profitable lawn care items. These politicians have no concern at all for the free will of insurance providers.
Lies empower all other evils. When one turns one's back on truth, one can do anything. The radical Left has adopted an end-justifies-the-means mentality. Such a philosophy is apathetic to truth, and is restrained only by power. In other words, the more power such politicians have, the more boldly they violate moral restraints.