If You Don't Say You're For It, You're Against It

I think we're seeing that the problem is more organizational. Or maybe it just starts at the top and filters down. Now even the Providence Journal is accusing the Cicilline campaign of umm, well, not exactly telling the truth.

In today's Politifact report, Cicilline earned a "False" rating.

A David Cicilline campaign flier says Brendan Doherty wants to raise the eligibility age for Social Security benefits for anyone born after 1960 "with no regard for the challenges it would cause for people working in physically demanding occupations."

But the Cicilline campaign provided no evidence that Doherty ever espoused that position.

Attacking someone for what he hasn’t specifically said -- that he supports the exemption -- defies logic, particularly since Doherty says he does support the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which would include the hardship exemptions if the eligibility age is raised.

Well, that seems fairly innocuous, but in researching the article, Politifact asked Cicilline campaign manager Eric Hyers about this and his response:

When we asked Cicilline’s campaign for any other evidence of Doherty’s position, campaign manager Eric Hyers said Doherty’s lack of specific mention of the hardship exemptions shows he doesn’t support them and has "no regard for the challenges" of those who work in physically demanding jobs.

Let's get this straight. If you don't specifically say you support something, that means you oppose it? Is that the world of logic we're working with here from our Congressman? I've never seen where Cicilline has said he supports being nice to puppies, so that must mean he's opposed to it and kicks puppies. There are so many places you can go with this "If you don't say you support it that means you oppose it" logic.

Then the campaign manager gets caught up a little bit more with his attempt at wordsmithing:

Besides, Hyers said, the flier doesn’t actually say Doherty "opposes an exemption. It only says he has not made a point to speak about it."

(In fact, the flier says Doherty wants to raise the eligibility raise "with no regard" for physically challenging jobs.)

Finally, he tries the old "say it enough times and it'll become true" tactic

The flier "is 100 percent accurate," Hyers contends.

But Politifact wasn't buying.

But the Cicilline campaign provided no evidence that Doherty ever espoused that position.

When we have so many examples of Cicilline trying to pass of things that aren't exactly true, it really makes you wonder about everything else he says that hasn't been examined. Hopefully people will look at future statements equally closely.