Could it be that we’re taking this just a little too far?

Most people view life as a black or white experience. It is either one or the other. In life, for instance, it is simple to tell the truth from a lie, a lie here being defined as something the teller knows not to be true. And once the truth has made its appearance, its opposite should be as easily recognized. But for those whose ideal depends on at least some people believing a least a portion of what has been recognized as untrue, these people can rest easy. Because, believe it or not, there are those among us who would as easily believe a lie as the truth. And when these people do recognize a lie as the truth, they may not even perceive what they have done. Or they may think that their motives for accepting a lie as the truth make up for it.

Politicians are the ones who normally benefit when they can pass a lie off as the truth. But because of the success politicians have had, we are seeing other groups similarly engaged. One such group is the American Petroleum Institute, who has launched a presumably much-viewed, and rather expensive, ad, wherein an attractive blonde model tells us that we need more energy, and that there is plenty of it offshore. All we need, we are told, is for Congress to allow the petroleum industry to get out there in the Gulf of Mexico, between hurricanes, and get it.

Mind you, this flies in the face of what Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens has been saying. Pickens, as I related last week, has been telling us that the U. S. has only 3% (not the 5%, as I incorrectly stated then) of the world’s oil reserves, and that this figure will not change, no matter how much, or even where, we drill. Further, it is his contention that we must now begin the arduous task of breaking ourselves from being so dependent on oil.

Well, the American Petroleum Institute knows this, but it also knows that there are profits a’plenty to be had if its members are allowed to bring this oil to market, and they are willing to bet whatever it takes that the profits will outweigh the risks involved in such a venture. And they are also willing to bet that they can get enough people on their side to get permission to drill by running these ads.

Of course, when you site specifics in such a treatise as this, you want to be on guard against coming down too strongly on one side of the argument or the other. But sometimes you will get clues that perhaps you are on to something. Take for instance, the GOP presidential team of John McCain and Sarah Palin. It has been suggested several times, and by a variety of sources, that McCain’s pick for Veep has not been exactly truthful whenever she has stated that she, like McCain, has always been very strongly against what is termed as “earmarks”. Specifically, she has stated, and continues to state, that when she was given the choice of taking money for the infamous “bridge to nowhere”, she told Congress “…thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge go nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves.”

Well, like her mentor, McCain, Palin seems to have forgotten that statements we’d wished we’d never made sometimes get recorded by that nemesis of politicians everywhere, namely the media, for the general prosperity of all. And this case is no exception. For Palin, like John Kerry and the storied Iraq funding bill that Kerry eventually voted against, was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. And this time, it was the local media, specifically the Ketchikan Daily News, that reported Palin’s supportive comments made on Sept. 20, 2006, while she was campaigning for Governor in the area.

Well, darn it, Palin and McCain both know that Palin was for the bridge before she was against it. But both also know that there are those who still see Palin as the victim of a malignant press, and these people would rather believe that the press is lying about Palin, and would never believe that Palin would lie about anything. And as McCain is still trying to shore up his image as a political maverick, well, you see the results in the fact that Palin is still reciting her little line about “thanks, but no thanks.”

Of course, if you are John McCain, there is one other litmus test you must pass in order to get a less-than-truthful statement accepted, and that is the Karl Rove test. If Karl Rove does not say anything about your claims against your opponent, then you should be on safe ground. Unfortunately, McCain has not managed to pass this test. Because, on Faux, er Fox News, Karl Rove, on Sunday, in front of Rupert Murdoch and everybody, said that, while both campaigns had used misleading messages in their ads, because Obama accused McCain of “Rovian tactics”, McCain’s misleading ads took on more significance. (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012300022)

McCain’s claim that Obama had called Palin a pig when he said of McCain’s policy statements “You can put lipstick on a pig…” was one statement that Rove was referring to when he said “There ought to be an adult that says ‘Do we need to go that far in this ad?’ …won’t we get broader acceptance if…we don’t include that…?”. Of course, McCain knew that Obama wasn’t referring to his Vice-Presidential candidate when he made that statement, but again, he figures the rewards of putting that claim out there will outweigh the disadvantages of having it found out later that the claim was not quite accurate.

Well, maybe not, because, on the same web site, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor is quoted as saying "In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove - the man who held the previous record - said McCain's ads have gone too far."