Bill Kristol's Truth-o-meter

In his latest column in the Weekly Standard--entitled "A Tale of Two Ads"--Bill Kristol compares and critiques two campaign ads, one by a Democratic congressional candidate and one by a Republican.

The first--an ad by Patty Wetterling, the Democratic candidate in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District--focuses on the Mark Foley scandal. Kristol highlights the following quote from the ad:

"It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children. For over a year, they knowingly ignored the welfare of children to protect their own power. For 17 years, Patty Wetterling has fought for tougher penalties against those who harm children. That's why she's demanding a criminal investigation and the immediate expulsion of any congressman involved in this crime and coverup."

Kristol is highly critical of this ad, approvingly citing a Washington Post editorial accusing Wetterling of "seriously overstat[ing] what is known about the actions of the House Republican leadership." Taken by itself, that's a fair criticism. The ad is hyperbolic and imprecise. It states as fact things which are not yet known for certain and uses language--"used the internet to molest children"--which overstates what actually happened (at least based on what we know so far).

What makes Kristol's column so astounding, however, is the Republican ad which he chooses to juxtapose against Wetterling's. The Republican ad--by Nancy Johnson, the incumbent in Connecticut's 5th Congressional District--focuses on the issue of warrantless wiretapping. Here's the excerpt Kristol highlights:

"A call is placed from New York to a known terrorist in Pakistan. A terrorist plot may be unfolding. Should the government intercept that call or wait until the paperwork is filed? Nancy Johnson says: 'Act immediately. Lives may be at stake.' Liberal Chris Murphy says: 'No. Apply for a court warrant even if valuable time is lost.' Chris Murphy -- wrong on security, wrong for America."

This ad is, of course, nothing but a blatant lie, a ridiculous strawman. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has provisions that allow for retroactive warrants. You don't have to "wait until the paperwork is filed." So this commercial is as misleading as a commercial can be. It even puts words in the Democratic candidate's mouth that he has never said and would never say.
But, shockingly, Kristol sees no real problem with this ad. He writes:

On supporting the administration's program of warrantless surveillance: Republicans in the House voted 214-13 for, Democrats 177-18 against. The Nancy Johnson advertisement may oversimplify things, but it captures a basic difference between the parties. That's why it has been effective. Johnson has opened a sizable lead on her opponent since the ad started running.

There you have it, folks: according to the Bill Kristol truth-o-meter, Johnson's ad "may oversimplify things, but it captures a basic difference between the parties." Kristol is right, of course, but not in the sense he means it. The ad does in fact capture an important difference between the parties, one that I've written about recently. The ad underscores the fact that one party is far more willing than the other to stoop to outright deception in order to win elections. This is the ugly reality that nearly everyone who follows politics closely knows to be true but is unwilling--for various reasons--to say publicly.

Ironically, Kristol's choice of ads serves to highlight the exact opposite point of the one he was trying to make. Wetterling's ad stretches the truth. It ventures beyond what is known for certain and into the realm of conjecture (though, for the most part, reasonable conjecture). I don't condone such tactics--nor do I think they're necessary--but this is the sort of run-of-the-mill hyperbole we've all come to expect from campaign ads. Johnson's ad, on the other hand, is just demonstrably false. It attributes to her opponent a position that literally no one holds and misstates the facts and the law in doing so. It's not an exaggeration. It's not conjecture. It's just a flat out lie.

That Bill Kristol would choose such an ad to highlight the superiority of the Republican message is a testament to the utter intellectual poverty of that message and of Kristol himself.