The The GOP accidentally released a statement congratulating Pence on his victory in last night’s Vice-Presidential candidates debate about two hours before the debate started.
Observations:
1. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza mentioned the embarrassing release but brushed it aside as “sausage-making.” No, the word for it is lying. The statement implies that someone actually “fact-checked” what had not taken place when that was obviously impossible….unless, of course, the GOP really has a time machine.
2. Does anyone believe this junk? They must, or nobody would issue it. Thus it is intentional deception.
3. It also shows how incompetent the Republican Party is that this lie would be released before the debate. But we knew that...
4. Apparently Pence did win the debate, mostly because of Kaine’s obnoxious performance and the blatant bias of the moderator. You don’t think…?
5. The really depressing thing is that so many journalists and voters also decided who won the debate before it occured.
Ethics Alarms 
President Dewey must be embarrassed.
Unlike Dewey, though, they actually nailed it.
I watched 15 minutes of the debate and managed to infuriate my spouse – The Lovely Cynthia. In a blunder comparable to the issuing a victory prior to the debate, I simple stated that Kaine interrupts incessantly so I can sympathize with Pence. I thought I was subtle.
Did your night on the couch help to teach you the error of your ways?
Lysistrata isn’t a real argument.
Doesn’t mean it isn’t persuasive.
My sentence is now in its 42nd year. I am beyond Rehabilitation.
I really don’t see the parallel. If a woman can’t stand this kind or remark she should go to her safe space.
Rick,
You are a brave soul. I disagreed with my wife once. Once.
jvb
Ah….confusion between brave and stupid. As an experienced male one should be more carefull. I was not and shall suffer for it.
Rick,
Rest assured. Many of have shared your fate. We wish you well in your recovery. I had to go through physical therapy to repair the damage done by her Louisville Slugger. There are still large gaps in my memory, though.
jvb
I laughed so hard my IV line came out.
I wish this surprised me.
I have the feeling, and I could be wrong, but I have the feeling that the GOP probably had about a dozen statements from which they intended to release the most appropriate… Kind of similar to how newspapers will write multiple stories based on political wins or sports games, depending on the outcome. That doesn’t make this less embarrassing, but the first thing that popped into my head was more “someone messed up” as opposed to “someone planned to lie”.
It rather reminded me of the time that one of the news channels accidentally released their scrawl announcing the death of Joe DiMaggio…but he wasn’t dead.
Was it the Way-Back Machine or simply wishful thinking?
jvb
To be fair to them, I think the Republican Party has a duty to spin for their candidate as much as possible. The real ethical lapse here wasn’t, from that perspective, the deceit, but the sheer incompetence involved in the attempt, which may have hurt their candidate rather than help them.
It should have hurt him. I doubt it did. Whole herds of camels have had to be swallowed before now, this is just a poisonous little gnat.
In normal circumstances, a big deal. Now.. circumstances aren’t normal.
3. It also shows how incompetent the Republican Party is that this lie would be released before the debate. But we knew that…
The question is can Jack factually dispute any thing in the release other than its timing? One can disagree who won the debate. Because both sides always declare victory it all depends on which truth you want to believe.
If Jack or any of the commenters ever worked with any of the major newswire operations, the idea that the RNC pushed out the press release to the public prior to the event on purpose is preposterous. Calling the act a lie is itself factually false.
Both candidates use organizations like third party organizations such as PRNewswire to facilitate the distribution of information that helps promote their message. Such organizations use computerized databases to cue up and then distribute such messages to thousands of news organizations around the globe. The message above is clearly generic and irrefutable from their perspective.
I would venture a guess that whoever typed in the time and date for its release in the database screwed up unless the information delivered to the distributor was what was typed in. Blaming the RNC for this error without knowing what release information was sent to the Newswire distributor is improper.
For Zoe, If the third party newswire employee sympathetic to HRC purposely put in an incorrect time to issue the release solely to embarrass the RNC is that unethical? Obviously this is conjecture but so too is the original premise that the RNC is incompetent because it released this message before it happened.
Writing that one has fact-checked what had not occurred is obviously a lie. For you to be correct, we would have to believe that the GOP was not intending to release after the debate an assessment of the debate written without actually assessing it. The piece states that what has not occurred and could not occurred, occurred. That’s a lie. That the piece might have been edited later is speculation.
I review plays sometimes. If I wrote a review before seeing the play and inadvertently released it on line, what would that tell you?
Have you never written in the past tense about something you expect to happen before it happens?
People right now are drafting out their stories about the Cubs winning the world series (though I hope they’re not stupid enough to post them.)
And that’s really what you think was going on here, is it? Tell me another. The post was written in general terms, based on Pence’s pre-determined script. Unless you can point me to a tile that the Republican Party has ever said, after any debate, “Yeah, our guy got creamed,” then you are making a case that doesn’t exist. Do you think any of those sportswriters will come out and insist that the Cubs win after they lose? has any sportswriter done that? Ever? If one did, would he continue to be employed?
Bad analogy.
And no, I have never written an analysis of an event that hasn’t occurred yet. To do so is proof of bias, and that confirmation bias is ready to strike.
Having a PR background this is how it usually works. Two press releases are written and available for release. They are submitted to the wire services with an embargo time on them stating when the correct article should be released. Yes, someone messed up, but this is common practice.
Irrelevant to this case. What did that other release say, Frank? Enlighten me.