There’s a diary at the top of the Rec list right now accusing a front pager of “lying”. It begins as follows:
THIS is a bullshit diary and demeans every one of us by residing on the front page.
It starts with, “Here is the truth,” and then says:
“In the Democratic Party, a democratic socialist is much better liked than the anointed establishment candidate. But the establishment candidate is more likely to win.”
Bullshit. In the Democratic party, Clinton is ahead by millions of votes. And she’s not “anointed,” she’s doing the hard fucking work of winning. But the bottom line is simple — Clinton is better liked by 3 million votes.
Sounds pretty damning, eh? Except for the fact that it is itself an example of misrepresentation and prevarication.
The diary being criticized is actually entitled “Here’s the truth: I fear Donald Trump.”
What the critic, that fearless warrior for truth and accuracy, has done is the typical cut and paste job employed when someone wishes to distort and misrepresent what others have actually said. The truth is that Egberto Willies fears Donald Trump. That is what he said. Full stop.
Our “warrior for truth” then proceeds to advance his cut and paste approach a step further.
And then:
“The populist Democratic candidate wins in mostly open Democratic primaries. The Democratic candidate with the incrementalist message wins in the mostly closed Democratic primaries.”
Here’s what Willies really said, including the actual beginning of his diary:
There is no parallel to the current election. And these are very strange times.
In the Democratic Party, a democratic socialist is much better liked than the anointed establishment candidate. But the establishment candidate is more likely to win.
In the Republican Party, all of the establishment candidates made early exits. The least liked candidate won the Republican nomination.
Here our tireless critic of inaccuracy does what can only be politely described as misread Willies. It is evident that Willies isn’t describing the candidate’s popularity within the Democratic Party but is referring to the widely recognized reality that polls have been showing that Bernie Sanders has a higher favorability with the general electorate than HRC. Evidently our fearless defender of truth would prefer not to grapple with this, so instead we are treated to the pretense that Willies is referring to relative popularity among registered Democrats.
The reason for this is that our fearless critic has a particular narrative that he is pursuing and isn’t about to let little things like accuracy or fairness get in the way.
And then:
“The populist Democratic candidate wins in mostly open Democratic primaries. The Democratic candidate with the incrementalist message wins in the mostly closed Democratic primaries.”
Another damnable lie.
Not actually. Again the full context of what Willies Said:
Republicans voted for the candidate articulating a populist message. The populist Democratic candidate wins in mostly open Democratic primaries. The Democratic candidate with theincrementalist message wins in the mostly closed Democratic primaries. As such, the incrementalist Democrat will likely win. In a disturbing irony, Republicans are voting for hope, while Democrats are voting out of fear.
Note that Willies did not say that Sanders wins all open primaries or that HRC only wins closed primaries. The operative word being “mostly”. Now I’ll admit that one could legitimately object to this characterization of HRC’s performance over all but given the recent spate of closed vs open primaries it isn’t an inapt comparison. Inaccurate if applied to the primary overall perhaps but a “damnable lie”? Only if one swallows whole the tissue of misrepresentation and deceit our fearless critic has contrived.
I could go on but given the above it would seem redundant. This diary is yet another example of the defamatory depths to which some are willing to go in order to avoid dealing with the actual points being raised. In this instance, the very real concerns about HRC’s potential weaknesses in the General Election.
Ignoring these concerns by making libelous, diversionary attacks on anyone who dares raise them isn’t reality based, it’s reality avoidance.
In any case, I think it’s obvious that our Fearless Critic has little standing to accuse anyone else of dishonesty.