Blast from the past: How the MSM in collusion w/rw attacked Al Gore over the cost of dog medication

[rinsd]

Thanks to a Bush ad, the dog pills are back. The ad paints Gore as a liar for his doggy-pill tale, then says his remarks can't be trusted on Social Security either. The crackpot logic perfectly enacts the two-year campaign about Gore's alleged fibbing—a campaign which began with the RNC, then spread to a quite-eager press corps.

But what is supposed to be wrong with Gore's comment about the dog pills? It's always been hard to explain. Here's how the Bush ad gets started:

BUSH AD: Remember when Al Gore said his mother-in-law's prescription cost more than his dog's? His own aides said the story was made up.

They did? The ad shows a 9/19 Washington Times article. Headline: "Aides concede Gore made up medicine story." But we've found someone else who makes lots of things up—the Washington Times often makes up good stories. Here is the actual part of the Times story where the "Gore aides" make their "concession:"

BOYER AND SCULLY: In fact, Gore aides yesterday could not say whether the candidate's mother-in-law pays for the arthritis medication Lodine out of her own pocket or if the cost is covered by insurance.

Does that sound like the aides "said the story was made up?" The aides said they didn't know how Gore's mom-in-law pays for the drugs. But Gore had never said anything about that. He said (correctly) that his mother-in-law and his dog both use the drug, and that the drug costs more for humans than for pets. Here's the actual quote which appeared in the press—the only quote which appeared in the press. Gore: "While it costs $108 a month for a person, it costs $37.80 for a dog." Those were figures from a congressional study, which Gore used to sketch out the problem. For the record: Boyer and Scully said Gore was correct about the general problem. They wrote, "Gore's basic premise is correct—prescription drugs in general do cost more for humans than for pets."

More at the link - http://www.dailyhowler.com/h110200_1.shtml

A reminder of how the media & rw wish to portray our candidates and a call to reject such framing.

[Mags]

1. Just you wait for the Barack attack.

[LisaM]

2. Yep! they said Al Gore was a liar liar liar

I'm reminded of it each time I hear it said about Hillary.

[KoKo]

3. Oh Yeah...and if Hillary dropped out they'd "Gore" Obama the same way....

and folks will see what the MSM does.

[rinsd]

4. Kick because most people just don't get it.

[AllentownJake]

5. The problem is...

Some people here want to talk about how unelectable another candidate is because of what someone close to him said without mentioning how unelectable their candidate is for crazy Forest Gump stories. The RW is going to make up some nonsense to attack the nominee that has nothing to do with any issues and both of them would equally be damaged by these attacks.