Goofus Al and Gallant George

In 2000, the media hounded Al Gore over alleged minor exaggerations. So why does it give Bush a pass when he doesn't tell the truth about life-and-death matters like Iraq and tax policies?

By Eric Boehlert

Jul 1, 2003 | What a difference a few years makes for the Beltway press.

Today, as the fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq continues and the White House claim that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America seems more dubious by the day, more questions are being raised in Congress about President Bush's tendency to mislead and deceive. Many journalists, though, seem less interested in being the watchdog than in assuring Americans that Bush hasn't lied about central issues like war and peace. Instead, he's simply exaggerated.

It is a curious position. During the 2000 presidential campaign, the press couldn't stop writing, investigating and carrying on about Al Gore's alleged exaggerations regarding old movies, canoe trips, and classroom seating inside a Sarasota school.

As detailed at Daily Howler, journalists turned exaggerations into the pressing issue during the closing weeks of the campaign, as pundits argued that Gore's embellishments all but disqualified him from serving as president. Hooked on the story, reporters spent an extraordinary amount of time checking in with experts -- psychoanalysts, academics, political scientists -- trying desperately to figure out what all the exaggerations meant.

By dwelling on, and often falsely reporting, Gore's so-called exaggerations, the press became the Bush campaign's best ally and helped drive down Gore's poll numbers, particularly when voters were asked which candidate was more trustworthy. As veteran political analyst Charlie Cook noted last year in a National Journal column, it was Gore's "exaggerations that cost him his post-Democratic convention lead."

But Bush's current-day exaggerations about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, Saddam's fictional alliance with al-Qaida, or the reasons for flying in a jet fighter to a photo-op on the USS Lincoln? Or the deceptive White House spin on Bush's radical tax policy? Much of the press gives him a pass. Chattering cable pundits have no interest in chewing up TV time to examine what's behind Bush's conflicts with truth and reality, or what those say about Bush the man and how he's leading the country. In just two and a half years, the Beltway press has come to the hasty conclusion that presidential exaggerations are no longer considered deal breakers. Everybody does it, the reasoning seems to go; what really matters most are outright lies.

With the Bush administration leading an ongoing war on terror, it's possible that journalists, at least subconsciously, do not want to publicly question the president's character. "There's a huge psychological need to believe and trust your president when we're being told every day we may be attacked by terrorists," says Emmy Award-winning journalist James Moore, a coauthor of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential." "But I think there's a dangerous mentality among the press that says, Well, yeah, he needed to exaggerate to go after Saddam Hussein, but that's OK because it's for the good of the country and we shouldn't hold him accountable."

"I believe the press is in awe of the Bush juggernaut," adds Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University's journalism department. "Journalists respect a winner and those they think of as savvy and effective. Besides, what's a worse crime according to journalists, shading the truth or being naive about the way the world really works? It's definitely the latter."

Or maybe some journalists who covered the 2000 race don't want to concede they made a mistake. "They would have to admit they were duped by an exaggerator," says Moore. Either way, today's blatant double standard over exaggerations is not reserved for Gore's hard-luck campaign. It's part of a larger pattern in how the press treats Democratic candidates tougher than it treats Republicans. Examples from the current campaign trail abound.

Bush backers in the conservative press have been out front defending the president's shaky grasp of the truth. Blogger Andrew Sullivan last week wrote that charges against Bush and his crusade against still-missing WMD "ultimately amounts to an argument that the administration exaggerated." The clear implication is that exaggerations are not serious matters that warrant serious attention. Which is odd, because during the closing days of the 2000 run, Sullivan, writing in the Sunday Times of London, listed "exaggerations" to be among Gore's most damning traits. But the it's-only-exaggeration spin has now become the mainstream mantra as well. A recent Washington Post editorial addressing the fruitless hunt for WMD noted matter-of-factly, "While the Bush administration may have publicly exaggerated or distorted parts of its case, much of what it said reflected a broad international consensus."

Note how presidential exaggerations are an accepted part of today's political landscape and should not raise doubts. Is this the same Washington Post that, one month before the 2000 election, ran a Page One piece exploring Gore's exaggerations? In the article, two Post reporters combed through decades of public statements; as proof of Gore's exaggerations they pointed to a boast he had made years ago that while a journalist in the 1970s he "got a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail." The truth, harrumphed the Post, was that "two were indicted, and in fact, no one went to jail." It was an example, the Post intoned, of Gore's "casual lying." Yet Bush routinely misleading Americans on the reasons to wage war? That's just exaggerating.

Or look at the June 22 New York Times Week in Review essay, "Bush May Have Exaggerated, but Did He Lie?" Again, note the assumption of the headline, that exaggerations matter less than lies. In that piece the Times assured readers: "A review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied" about WMD or his tax plan. And in a strange defensive burst on behalf of Bush, the Times announced categorically: "There is no evidence the president did not believe what he was saying."

Yet a few paragraphs later, the newspaper reported that Bush had claimed his tax-cut package would mean "relief for everyone who pays income taxes." That's patently false; nearly 10 million income tax payers will get no relief. Was that a lie, something intended to create a falsehood? The Times makes no judgment but offers a generous observation instead: "If [Bush] had said 'almost all,' it would have been accurate."

Next Page: Was the "Russert primary" rigged?

• View blog reactions