Much of the media has correctly labeled this comment as any of the following:
* a lie
* an "untruth"
* the highest level of deception
* "four pinocchios" (highest level)
I'm all for being direct here - but i'm okay with the other descriptors listed above.
What I am NOT ok with is the what the New York Times stated over the weekend - they said the President "misspoke".
To misspeak means a slip of the tongue occurred, you said something that came out unintentional.
In the case of the "you can keep your plan if you like your plan" comment - this was uttered at least three dozen times by the President - that disqualifies it from being a misspoken incident.
The New York Times has sunk to a new low here in professional journalism - even fellow Democrats and huge Obama supporters (Bill Maher) are calling this incident a "lie" at most or "an incomplete statement" at best.
I think this editorial in yesterday's NY Times marks the beginning of the end of this once respected newspaper - they have long been down the road of being a Democratic policy-pusher - but this time they may have gone too far.
It will be very interesting to see if the President can recover from this comment - if he can at all to save his 2nd term.
Comments welcome!
"If you like your plan, you can keep it" montage.
ReplyDeletehttp://videos.nymag.com/video/If-You-Like-Your-Plan-Supercut
This includes many instances, but also omits many. My favorite is the slight variation, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." The addition of "period" in a statement of this sort is meant to underscore the decisiveness of the preceding line. It indicates that the speaker has thought the statement through entirely and fully understands the implications of it. There is no interpretation allowed or necessary. The statement is to be considered on its face value with no room for nuance or ambiguity and is an assurance that the speaker is using direct language with no anterior or veiled meaning or motive.
But lost in this discussion, I think, is the curiosity of the word selection. The way this is phrased ("…you can…"), it positions Obama/the government as PERMITTING individuals to do something. It is as if to say, "I decree that by my kind and generous allowance, you may do something that I magnanimously will allow. But don't forget that this is my decision, I am in charge and you require my PERMISSION to do this thing. You are welcome (sort of). And you are a subject, under me. I giveth and I can take away. Don't forget that. You can only do this thing because I allow it to be done." Anyone else see that written between the lines?
anterior = ulterior
ReplyDelete