So, I wonder....mhosea wrote:Can't say that I disagree with that, Jim. I don't think any politician is a suitable source of politically-relevant facts, but in general I expect half-truths and subjective slants, one side of the story, precisely the side that makes them look good and/or their opponent look bad. Occasionally some politician will be caught in an objective lie (like, "I never met with Mr. Smith." when in fact they did), but more often the word is thrown around by the other side in connection with playing the exact same game with the same set of facts, merely emphasizing exactly the half that is most politically useful to them.
Was it different, say, in the 40s or 50s?
If during a debate the VP was busted lying (objective) I wonder how it would have played then....