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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
joe bernstein
joe bernstein
9 years ago

What will it take for this little turd to get a Pants on Fire?I hadda write this before the standard russ/sammy defense team started in.

Max D
Max D
9 years ago

The irony of it all. Doherty supports the findings of the President’s deficit commission and Cicilline chides him for it.

brassband
brassband
9 years ago

Kinda tough for any RISP veteran to talk about cutting anyone else’s retirement benefits. . . I’m just sayin’

Dan
Dan
9 years ago

“The silence is deafening” a.k.a the Pat Crowley school of dishonest debate.

Max D
Max D
9 years ago

“Kinda tough for any RISP veteran to talk about cutting anyone else’s retirement benefits. . . I’m just sayin'”
Not buying that one. Did he oppose pension reform or is your point just because he’s a participant in the plan, his position is less legitimate?

Joel
Joel
9 years ago

Hi, I came across your site and wasn’t able to get an email address to contact you about a broken link on your site. Please email me back and I would be happy to point them out to you.
Thanks!
Joel
JHouston791@gmail.com

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.