The cases are different in any case. Maybe oral sex is neither clearly sex nor clearly not sex. But Palin engaged in actions that clearly count as `opposing the bridge’. It isn’t clear that she had admirable motives for doing so, but she did engage in “opposing the bridge behaviors”, behaviors that infuriated people who supported the bridge. Of course, she also engaged in actions that clearly count as `supporting the bridge’.

The point is, to say that Palin shot a moose is to say that at some point she engaged in shooting-a-moose activities. It isn’t to say that she always was engaged in such activities, or was even always disposed to engage in them. It isn’t to say anything about her motives for engaging in such activities. Likewise, to say that Palin opposed the bridge is to say that Palin once engaged in opposing-the-bridge activities. And she did in fact engage in such activities. There is just no way around this fact–even though I grant that the statement is significantly misleading.

I don’t understand the desire to paint with such broad strokes here. There is a difference between lying and misleading someone. Politicians and advertisers mislead people constantly. But politicians and advertisers cannot just lie to people. They end up in trouble with the law if they do.

There is also a huge difference, by the way, in context between what counts as “telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in a courtroom and what counts as true in a TV ad. What Clinton didn’t do was tell the whole truth. If Clinton went around bragging to his buddies that he was having sex with his intern, then he was lying. Because he wasn’t having sex with her.

Back in the Clinton era, I believed conservatives were at least somewhat less likely to indulge in Clintonesque contortions. Now, I fear that there’s nothing to conservatism, particularly McCainism, but tortured logic, technicalities, faux outrage, and outright lies.

This is the last time I’m going to say this, but in the English language a lie has to be something (known to be) false. And `Palin opposed the bridge’ is in fact true, no matter how misleading it is. And, whether or not Palin really is (in the eyes of God) a reformer, she was certainly believed to be a reformer by pretty much everybody at the time she was selected, so I have a hard time thinking that McCain knew that this almost universal opinion of her was mistaken. (For the pedants-almost universal among the people who knew her.)

As evidence, just look at what the press said about her prior to the pick. I read everything I could find on her: from the Alaskan newspapers to articles in the Times, USA today, and the WSJ. Any article that mentioned her political career at all claimed she was a reformer. Were the authors of all of those articles suffering from a peculiarly similar delusion? In any case, it is eminently plausible to think that McCain believed she was a reformer when he picked her, since everyone else did.

In any case, here’s why I believe Palin is a reformer: (1) she changed the tax code that was unfairly kind to oil companies; (2) she fought corruption in her party, leading to the resignation of two people more senior than her; (3) she drastically reduced the number and amount of earmark requests as governor; (4) she is responsible for ethics reform that had significant effects “on the ground”.

Unless I’m wrong about the facts, Palin has done significantly more reforming than most politicians. Hence it is not a lie to say `Palin is a reformer’. I’m not saying she’s some big hero. I’m not even saying she would make a good VP. But I find that there is a peculiar animosity (amongst some) towards her, just as there is a peculiar animosity (amongst some) towards Obama. Small time reformers are a dime a dozen, just give that to her. It certainly doesn’t automatically qualify her for the vice presidency.

Also, she hired an Abramoff-affiliated lobbyist as mayor of Wasilla, obtained an absurd amount of earmark funding, but managed to leave the city in debt nonetheless.

Also, as with the bridge, she was a big Ted Stevens supporter until it became expedient to distance herself from him.

Every word about her being a reformer– allegedly the reason McCain was drawn to her– is a lie. Yet Daniel is more or less the world’s only conservative willing to criticize her forthrightly. All I can think is that she is popular for reasons of identity politics.

I suppose the question of how misleading the claim is becomes pretty important. (I wouldn’t quibble with saying something that was technically true but REALLY misleading was a lie. It’s certainly dishonest.)

Since my understanding is that during her tenure as governor she drastically reduced the number/amount of earmarks requested, and since that’s the issue (who cares about one bridge, it’s what the bridge signifies), I don’t find her comments excessively misleading. (By my lights, not as misleading as, say, saying `McCain said that anyone who made less that $5 million isn’t rich’.) In any case, the question of just how misleading her comments are probably isn’t one that can be conclusively settled.