Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdw5204 | Hacker News Reader

George H.W. Bush (the father not the son) actually expressed a thought like that about supermarket scanners at a grocers convention[0] while he was running for re-election. The New York Times used this to falsely portray Bush as unfamiliar with supermarket scanners. Of course the lie ended up being better remembered than the debunking so it hurt Bush and may have cost him re-election.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket_scanner_moment

View on HN

Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/05/us/bush-encounters-the-su...

You seem very convinced that the NYT pulled this notion from thin air and Bush was experiencing a moment of wonder towards everyday technology (the theme of this thread).

After reading the article, I believe this is the first electric scanner Bush saw. Bush is quoted saying "This is for checking out?" "I just took a tour through the exhibits here," "Amazed by some of the technology."

"Some grocery stores began using electornic scanners as early as 1976, and the devices have been in general use in American supermarkets for a decade."

This tells me that he hadn't been to a grocery store with this technology, which seems very plausible for many politicians, then and now. They have people to do that for them, they're out of touch (at least to some degree).

> may have cost him re-election

Perhaps, but I suspect “read my lips, no more taxes” and Ross Perot taking a large chunk of republican voters might have more to do with it.

Perot got almost 20% of the vote which is huge amount for a third party candidate, and being a succesful buisnessman and outsider as opposed to the government bureaucrat Bush made him appeal to many traditionally republican voters.

Perot supposedly drew equal numbers of voters from both sides, and I can see how that would be the case. If you wanted an “outsider”, Clinton was the governor of a small southern state who openly flouted political norms and was affectionately nicknamed “Bubba”. (In reality he was groomed for the ruling elite from his youth, but at the time people still fell for the Bubba act, just like they did less than 20 years previously for “Jimmy” Carter). The country wasn’t as polarized back then, or at least was polarized differently. Perot carved out his own lane in a lot of ways, but for every conservative Republican who was upset at Bush, there was probably a unionized auto worker and lifelong Democrat who was upset at Clinton for selling out on NAFTA.

> Perhaps, but I suspect “read my lips, no more taxes” and Ross Perot taking a large chunk of republican voters might have more to do with it.

Your analysis is correct, but the quote was slightly different:

"Read my lips, no new taxes"

GHWB also lied during the presidential debates. Afterward, his staff said, basically 'oops, sorry for the error'. That is, they were relying on Brandolini's Law to hold - and for people to believe the lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law?useskin=vec...

OK, obligatory joke: "How do you know a Politician is Lying?" "Her/His/Their/Its Lips are Moving!" ok, maybe 1% of a joke.....

> Of course the lie ended up being better remembered than the debunking so it hurt Bush and may have cost him re-election.

How far we've come. Today, politicians use lies to win elections.

Version of this is happening right now with the Trump "Bloodbath" comment. He is clearly speaking in the context of automobile manufacturing but the media has spun it to insinuate he is threatening violence. Personally I very much dislike Trump but the media spin on this from supposedly neutral news companies is egregious.

“Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.”

It’s clear he introduced his bloodbath metaphor in the context of talking about the auto industry. But it seems as he was saying it he had this thought - that the bloodbath wouldn’t just be confined to the auto industry. “… it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.” The ‘bloodbath’ he expects in the auto industry is in his mind an example of a more widespread threat. A ‘bloodbath for the country’.

Pretending his use of this language isn’t connected to a larger apocalyptic narrative he’s selling is disingenuous.

Everything he stated was in the context of the auto industry. Pulling it out of context and then applying your own interpretation is the disingenuous action. You and the media have added your own spin to a completely out of context statement. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump us dangerous but people and media doing this and misleading about what he said works to his benefit. It erodes trust in the news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com