I have read and heard it argued that some of the more outlandish statements like Vice-President Dick Cheney, Governor Sarah Palin, Representatives Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, and others like them should not be aired; that whatever they have to add to the public discourse should not be heard. I disagree, and below the orange entanglement of Church and State I will make my case.
Mr. Cheney just wrote an op-ed piece in The Weekly Standard entitled The Truth about Iraq [bring eyebleach].
In his article, Mr. Cheney holds forth on the idea it is wrong to assume that the USA would be better off if we had not sought to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He also holds forth the tired, debunked arguments that there was overwhelming evidence of Saddam Hussein's involvement with terrorist groups bent on destroying the USA, that there was (and is) no dispute he had the facilities, means, methods, and capabilities to create radiological, biological, and chemical weapons for use against any perceived enemy (presumably including the USA).
-----=
=<<< * >>>
=
=-----
We know how this goes, though it didn't have to be The Weekly Standard: it could just have easily been The Drudge Report, InfoWars, or any other of a number of conspiratorial or right wing Websites.
Once placed, it will be picked up by those sources and other allegedly mainstream media outlets such as FOX News Channel, and believed by millions.
So why bring mention to Mr. Cheney's (or anyone else) piece that rehashes old, tired arguments and talking points again?
Well, aside from trotting out his daughter at speaking events (presumably to tie Liz Cheney to his own agenda), if such things as Mr. Cheney's op-ed go unnoticed by the left or centre, they enter the public discourse unchallenged.
It is similar in execution but not the same as a Gish Gallop, similar to that used by Governor Mitt Romney in his first debate with President Obama. (That debate was widely seen by the media as won by Mr. Romney because the media failed to see the Gish Gallop in action.)
In Mr. Cheney's (and others) case, the idea is not to throw out a whole pile of strawmen, unrelated ideas, and uncoordinated ideas, but to repeatedly throw out the same ideas as often as possible.
In my opinion, it appears the strategy is to cause those on the left and centre to tire of countering the same arguments over and over. In the event that one or more arguments are not countered, it becomes part of the national political discourse.
For example, if Mr. Cheney's op-ed is ignored, then those that follow him will take on-board his argument, with a "see, the other side has no argument: Mr. Cheney must be correct."
As tedious and time-consuming as taking on the same argument over and over is, it has to be done. For the moment that any set of lies or half-truths about any subject (whether it is warfare or food stamps or any of a plethora of other subjects) is allowed to pass unchallenged, it becomes (for at least some) the truth.
One cannot hope to show everyone where all the debunked talking points are in fact untruthful, and there are those that will not see no matter how much you show them (a good example is the hundreds of news clips, overwhelmingly by FOX but including others, at the LiberalViewer YouTube channel).
The point is to catch those that might be on the fence or without knowledge, to show them why Mr. Cheney and others like him are wrong. For if they go unchallenged it is the same as agreeing with them.
Challenging such articles every time they come out is no different than challenging every seat up for election whether it is the Presidency or a village trustee's seat way out in the panhandly part of Nebraska. Every article, every time. Every political race, every time. Pretty simple.
If they want to sell their ideas to the public, I am all for it. Let them make their case. Open discourse is how one gets an informed electorate. But do not ever fail to challenge distortions or untruths.