When We Practice To Deceive (Needs More Practice Dept.)

I suppose it is not news anymore that the White House has no shame, that its first reaction to any bad news it to tell the sort of lies you expect from a naughty six-year-old—“Did not.” Maybe I'm naive, but it's still a shock when the White House lies about trivialities, and especially when it does it so very, very badly.

Today's weirdness—the word barely does it justice—is about a video shown on the David Letterman show Monday evening. George W. Bush Invigorating America's Youth showed excerpts from a long fundraising stump speech with a boy standing in the front row behind the President, clearly bored out of his gourd while dad robotically cheers away next to the carefully posed front-row black people. It's really funny.

Then CNN picked it up, and the White House spun into Lie Mode, accusing Letterman of doctoring the tape. This made Dave mad (actually, less furious than it would make me). And making late-night comedians mad is not, one would think, an especially clever thing to do in an election year. (found via Atrios)

Update: Alternate links for original item and followup

This entry was posted in Politics: US. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to When We Practice To Deceive (Needs More Practice Dept.)

  1. MP says:

    “Carefully posed fron-row black people” eh? John Kerry: “President Clinton was often known as the first black president, I wouldn’t be upset if I could earn the right to be the second.” Well Mr. Kerry, plastic surgeons can work miracles today, as you of all people would know.
    http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0304/030904-civil.htm
    Ahh, fair and balanced commentary brought to you by discourse.net

  2. As the proud father of a 6 year old (Kathy) I am compelled to protest against your cheap slander. Kathy is rarely naughty and is generally honest, but, when she does feel the need to lie, she is incomparably more able to pull it off than the Bush White House.

    I’d rate them at age 3, but they seem to be regressing towards 2.

Comments are closed.