Which president told the biggest whoppers? You decide.

JesFine

Critical Thinker
J
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
449
A few disclaimers: there is a noticeable dearth of conservatives among the judges of this poll.

There is absolutely nothing scientific about this poll.

The "lies" on this site are not nearly (in my opinion) the biggest lies these Presidents have told -- in fact one of the "lies" that is listed is clearly a joke by GW Bush.

OK, enough disclaimers, here's what I'm talking about -- The Mendacity Index
We asked a nominating committee of noted journalists and pundits to pick the most serious fibs, deceptions, and untruths spoken by each of the four most recent presidents. We selected the top six for each commander-in-chief, then presented the list to a panel of judges with longtime experience in Washington.
Click to expand...
Here are the results.

Again -- take a look at the "panel of judges" before you take the results too seriously.

It does however ask the interesting question of which President told the biggest lies. I think if you asked the average Joe on the street he would say Clinton almost as a reflex, but probably couldn't come up with anything much after the Monica quote. Since (most of) the posters here are smarter than the average Joe, I was curious as to which lies you found most innocuous, which are most offensive, and which unlisted lies should be listed.
 
I note that some of the "lies" attributed to Reagan were relatively minor ones. There are many more untruths for which Reagan was responsible, and many of them were far more serious than some of those noted in the article. It can be (and has been) argued that Reagan was not a "liar," because he really believed many of the things that he said.

For a somewhat scary account of the Reagan years, and Reagan's frequent departures from reality, read "The Clothes Have No Emperor" by Paul Slansky.
 
JesFine said:
I think if you asked the average Joe on the street he would say Clinton almost as a reflex, but probably couldn't come up with anything much after the Monica quote. Since (most of) the posters here are smarter than the average Joe, [/B]
Click to expand...


:rr::roll:
 
shemp said:
And what about Millard Fillmore?!
Click to expand...

That's Millard P Fillmore to you, buster, and I won't hear a word wrong about anyone who drafted the 1850 comprimise!
 
In terms of recent history, I would say that the first President Bush was the biggest liar:

Read my lips, no new taxes!
I want a kindler, gentler America.
I will balance the budget within two years.
There is no recession.

As for the biggest liars of all, I would say that it is a toss-up between Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
 
LBJ ranks up there.

Hoover too.

Jackson sure lied a lot to those indians as well. . .

Tough call.

I think Reagan ought to be taken off that list. Most (not all) of the ones they listed were VERY minor 'white' lies. The tree cutting one? The British gun one? Come on! Those aren't policy/nation changing lies like our last three have given.
 
Crossbow said:
As for the biggest liars of all, I would say that it is a toss-up between Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...
LBJ would have been offended at the comparison. Nixon wasn't even in his class.

Reagan wins, hands down. How can you beat a guy who completely fabricates a story about an event in his life, and then uses it as an illustration of how important it is to always tell the truth?
 
Remember when Reagan told the foreign official (can't remember his name) about the time he helped liberate a concentration camp during WW2?

Turns out that he had merely been involved with editing and narrating film (back in the USA) that was shot by the allies after the camp was liberated.

And if you say that he wasn't lying because he actually believed what he was saying at the time - I would posit that the inability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality goes way beyond lying as a negative to one's presidental fitness.
 
Michael Redman said:
Reagan wins, hands down. How can you beat a guy who completely fabricates a story about an event in his life, and then uses it as an illustration of how important it is to always tell the truth?
Click to expand...
As far as being untrustworthy, Reagan is very hard to beat. He repeatedly asserted that it was possible to cut taxes, increase military spending, and balance the budget all at the same time. His own people admitted that this plan was not feasible... and of course, it wasn't.

His misstatements about the Iran-Contra matter warranted impeachment (but he was "saved," in a sense, by the fact that he was too doddering to remember what he did).

He insulted recipients of the Medal of Honor by telling a story about another Medal of Honor recipient... who was entirely fictional.

His handlers tried to get him to "stick to the script." If he went "off script," as he often did, he would say some incredibly stupid things. It was considered sport among some members of the media to try to get Reagan to go "off script." This infuriated the White House, which accused the media of deliberately trying to make the president look like a fool. It also infuriated former President Carter, who felt that the media made light of the president being a fool, when in fact the president's being a fool is a very serious matter.
 
That "mendacity index" is pathetic. It picks out a minor "lie" that was only a second-hand retelling of a joke, maybe not even what Bush said, and passes over many genuine and important lies. It's absolutely pathetic. It's cover for journalists to ignore the fact that the REAL lies Bush told were ignored by the press.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090203.shtml

The idea of "ranking" lies is juvenile, it's quite clear from this that the press has absolutely no interest in actually demanding honesty from our presidents. They're much more interested in "fun" lies (polluting trees, second-hand retellings of jokes) than they are in lies that have serious consequences.
 
Everyone is forgetting George Washington. He did, in fact, chop down the cherry tree. And the little bastard lied about it! :mad:
 
bignickel said:
Remember when Reagan told the foreign official (can't remember his name) about the time he helped liberate a concentration camp during WW2?

Turns out that he had merely been involved with editing and narrating film (back in the USA) that was shot by the allies after the camp was liberated.
Click to expand...
I'm not totally convinced that Reagan is entirely to blame for this. If I understand correctly, Reagan was a part of the Signal Corps, and it was the Signal Corps that took much of the shocking concentration camp footage. Reagan also did review the raw footage taken by the Signal Corps. It is possible that Reagan said something like, "I was with the Signal Corps when the Signal Corps helped liberate the camps," and this led people to conclude that Reagan said he was present during the liberation.

There is little question, however, that this misunderstanding was not an isolated incident. Regardless of what Reagan actually said, several people concluded that Reagan claimed to have been present at the liberation.
 
Ziggurat said:
That "mendacity index" is pathetic. It picks out a minor "lie" that was only a second-hand retelling of a joke, maybe not even what Bush said, and passes over many genuine and important lies. It's absolutely pathetic. It's cover for journalists to ignore the fact that the REAL lies Bush told were ignored by the press.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090203.shtml

The idea of "ranking" lies is juvenile, it's quite clear from this that the press has absolutely no interest in actually demanding honesty from our presidents. They're much more interested in "fun" lies (polluting trees, second-hand retellings of jokes) than they are in lies that have serious consequences.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of this. The joke you are referring to is the one I also referred to in my original post. I did think however that the point it brings up is an important one, and wanted to see what discussion would come out of it. It seems to me people automatically associate Clinton with lying while the others don't get much of a mention.

Another thing that gets no mention is when GW Bush's makes some comment that, while technically true, nevertheless implies some huge falsities, and you just know this is intentional, but it gives him an out if he is ever called on it. I don't know if the others did this kind of thing as well as I was too young/didn't follow politics much while they were in office.
 
Ziggurat said:
The idea of "ranking" lies is juvenile, it's quite clear from this that the press has absolutely no interest in actually demanding honesty from our presidents. They're much more interested in "fun" lies (polluting trees, second-hand retellings of jokes) than they are in lies that have serious consequences.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a lot of power that comes with the office. Like the power to quietly suggest to a reporter's boss(es) that you're not "comfortable" with the reporter and, thus, ruin his career unless he "toes the line". Proving that such things happen is going to be extremely difficult and very few reporters (with families to support) would want to risk it, so they report "around the edges" to avoid the possibility.

Could Al Franken be right? :confused:
 
dsm said:

Well, there is a lot of power that comes with the office. Like the power to quietly suggest to a reporter's boss(es) that you're not "comfortable" with the reporter and, thus, ruin his career unless he "toes the line".
Click to expand...

I don't really believe that's what's going on, at least most of the time. The press had little problem savaging Clinton, and they savaged Gore for "lying" throughout the 2000 campaign even though he was telling the truth AND he had a good shot at winning. But they honestly don't seem to care as much about important lies (like, say, the basic nature of an economic plan) as they do about stupid, trivial, or personal lies. I really think the press corps is deeply immature, inbred, and disfunctional.
 
Ziggurat said:

I don't really believe that's what's going on, at least most of the time. The press had little problem savaging Clinton, and they savaged Gore for "lying" throughout the 2000 campaign even though he was telling the truth AND he had a good shot at winning. But they honestly don't seem to care as much about important lies (like, say, the basic nature of an economic plan) as they do about stupid, trivial, or personal lies. I really think the press corps is deeply immature, inbred, and disfunctional.
Click to expand...

Maybe Clinton/Gore didn't have a pitbull like Karl Rove?

Also remember that they're still tiptoeing around 9/11 and the President's high rating from that.
 
dsm said:

Maybe Clinton/Gore didn't have a pitbull like Karl Rove?
Click to expand...
Clinton had (actually still has) James Carville, a champion pit bull if I've ever seen one. Could eat Karl Rove for lunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom