Posted on 09/20/2008 9:51:20 PM PDT by jilliane
All Presidential candidates should be required to swear a legal oath of truth when they declare their interest in running for President of the United States (and subsequently, the candidate's VP too). Lies should be punishable as perjury whether about themself or the other candidate. If they smear a candidate blatantly like this social security B.S. then additional $ damages should be awarded to the candidate who was attacked from the donations from the campaign... and the FCC should throw something in for good measure for using airtime for false advertising.
Other solutions?
Who decides who’s lying? I don’t trust there would be a fair arbiter. I agree with you; I’m fed up with it on both sides, but what about when the media lies? Like the NYT is saying that McCain is smearing Obama on abortion when it appears the ad is actually the truth. They slipped in the word “nuanced”. I think that’s what Obama used to obfuscate his voting record in both the Illinois Senate and US Senate now that the word is starting to get out.
It’s so da&m frustrating!!!
Perjury is lying under oath in a court of law. And I can tell you that no matter what negative things are said, the other side would simply declare the oath violated and both would be in court for every ad they run, whether it is accurate or not.
I understand what you are frustrated at, but when you are a public figure, the legal thresholds for libel, slander, and such are much higher than that of a private citizen.
The Truth is Very Subjective to the Left.
problem becomes who is the arbiter of what is true of false. If you have reporters/partisans who decide what is true or false then the system fails. Take a small example like the Pig With Lipstick ad. Media/Democrats proclaim its a lie, but those who watched Obama said it first time, left with no doubt in their mind who he was referring to
**Perjury is lying under oath in a court of law. **
Never stopped SLICK WILLY .. it’ll never stop any Marxist LIB like NObama!
the way to combat lies is to have more free speech and trust in ppl who look at both side of each issue to draw the right conclusion.
the left has a habit of censoring those who they disagree why? Right wing speech is dangerous because we draw in supporters
I’d like to see campaigns limited to a month or two at the longest.
The problem with the American election cycle is that everyone has combat fatigue halfway through the primaries. Why can’t we hold all the primaries the same day, have the conventions the next week, give the candidates four weeks to bore us to death and then vote?
That’s a total fantasy, I know, but I can dream...
I’m thinking something along the lines of that old sci-fi movie “Scanners”...make those politicians think twice about
being stuck on stupid!!! ;-)
The media is a pain but I’m talking about direct lies from Presidential candidates. “I approved this message” and direct attacks from candidates mouths on TV, on the trail, lying. The spanish ad, the social security...some fair judge would be able to say it was misrepresented, out of context so not truthful implication etc. Especially ads run in the final days before election before a candidate can react to a lie. Should be some control on wild smears at the end (like introducing evidence at the 11th hour isn’t allowed in court without special circumstances). If we have no fair judges left, we have bigger problems than banking in this country. The case would have to be presented within 24 hours of the complaint and a decision rendered immediately.
Would probably need a supreme court so not just one person has the power....just a finding that the candidate lied after taking the oath should be enough to prevent a lot.
This is for the Presidency after all...not like running for class president.
Aren’t there laws to prevent wasting the court’s time? So if a campaign declares the oath violated and comes with no real proof that it was violated, then the judge will render that verdict and eventually people will see that the candidate keeps accusing of lying but not winning. That makes them look worse.
I guess what I want is the run for Presidency to be a legal process...they are making statements to Americans to secure trust ...like a sale...if the statements are proven false,there should be accountability.
If they clean up their rhetoric, what will the media chew on?
ok, but pig on a lipstick was not a false statement and has no basis of fact so it doesn’t meet the threshold and would be thrown out.
i’m saying the arbiter should be a legal one.
Sure - Let the “Law Makers” make the rules.
They have one set of rules for “Joe 6 pack” and another for themselves - and guess who always gets away with bold faced lies and such. “Well it ain’t “Joe 6 pack”.
that’d be nice...all primaries on the same day...there is no doubt that republican’s winner take all played a role - the protracted democrat race over months (vs. one day like you say) had everyone deciding who they liked better...hillary or barack.....then, mccain who?
Sorry, I’m not a lawyer so I don’t understand why existing laws for falsifying facts under oath couldn’t apply. Why would there need to be new rules?
Just heard one on CNN right now...the nth time Obama says, “McCain has 7 of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington running his campaign.”
If McCain can prove they are not the most powerful lobbyists...and none of them are running his campaign (maybe have worked it), and a judge agrees that Obama’s statement is false, then Obama would be required to stop saying it.
If however the judge(s) find it’s true, then he can scream it if he wants.
Leftists perceive that right wing speech is dangerous because it uses logic and reason [well, at least SOME of the time] to directly attack the memes on which their beliefs are founded.
A prime example of how leftists react to a frontal assault on their much-cherished memes is the leftist and MSM reaction to Sarah Palin. Because that's what she does by just being herself.
Her personal history does that, without her having to lift a finger or speak a single word.
The downside is that it adds another layer to government, the judiciary, and judges seem to have political bias, so I don't trust them. There might be a few honest ones left.
I knew you were talking about candidates, but I injected the media because they are complicit and part of the problem. And like the one poster said, campaigns would devolve into one complaint after another.
Even if they aren't lies or out of context, we should look beyond the sound bite. Few of us have time to debunk all of it. Like that stupid ad blaming Bush for the black guy getting dragged behind the pickup. As horrible as that tragedy was, the ad was dishonest, misleading, and opportunist, and how could Bush possibly be responsible or even held accountable for a criminal act that took place in his state no matter what hate laws or otherwise were in place? And the Willie Horton thing. No matter who is in charge, bad things will happen under their watch. But assigning the blame is a different matter. I don't remember much about the Willie Horton (not that it wasn't a horrible thing that happened) imbroglio, but my point is that it may or may not have been directly attributable to the candidate himself, Dukakis? No matter which side it is, you need to look at the whole record of their qualifications and past actions, not just one sensationalistic ad or event.
So taking your premise to the ultimate, even if a fair arbiter ruled decisively, people wouldn't believe it and give them another scapegoat to blame, the judge.
Maybe I don't like change, but I fear that even though some of the ads are over the top, if something like you suggest were put into play, one way or another it would be an assault on free speech.
Maybe public figures ought to be able to sue for libel? They're immune, I believe, as things now stand, and that's why people get away with lies and smears. But that involves a court and judge again.
That's enough for now, something to think about and explore more fully after the election is over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.