There's a word for people who

fight fair.

Loser.

No, that's not what I think.

It's what I think is developing as the prevailing attitude in the United

States, whether you're talking business, sports or politics.

Whether Al Gore has a spy in

George Bush's campaign is a question that may never be answered. But what

disturbs me most is the general reaction to the accusation. Rather than

question the integrity of a campaign of dirty tricks, people seem to shrug

off the allegation as "just politics," and many seem to think

that maybe Bush's people are being whiners to even bring the matter up.

I get almost daily bulletins

from the Republican Party pointing out what the party labels as "lies"

or "We just can't believe Al Gore."

The tone is downright shrill,

though I get the impression their target audience is GOP loyalists, with

a goal of energizing the Bush base. But if these flyers are being sent

to the media in general, I think they probably have more of a negative

effect than a positive one for the party's cause.

Is there truth to the allegations?

I don't have all the background so I can't vouch for every one. Obviously,

the people writing the flyers have a strong bias. But in some cases where

I do know enough about the subject matter to comment, yes, there is an

element of truth.

But the party would be better

served by pointing out inconsistencies in Gore's statements and actions

in a more reasonable tone.

If you're going to make the

other guy out to be a liar, it's best if you go about it in a way that

is totally intellectually honest, and that means not leaving out facts

that soften the offense.

For instance, in recent weeks

much was made of Gore's supposed phone call to a supporter offering a

veto in exchange for a large campaign contribution.

The facts in themselves are

pretty damning. A Democratic Party campaigner made the call, and reminded

the supporter that he had promised a $100,000 check as soon as the veto

was recorded, and asked the supporter to trust the president and write

the check early.

The only connection Gore had

with the whole scenario is that the campaign worker started the message

with: "Sorry you missed the vice president," which might indicate

that Gore had tried to make the same call earlier and failed.

When I consider all the other

campaign shenanigans that Gore has been linked to, I tend to believe that

Gore did make such a call, but it's certainly not the smoking gun that

Republicans and conservative talk show hosts and columnists made it out

to be. And when you make more out of it than the facts will support, you're

the one that looks dishonest.

Is Gore as dishonest and sleazy

as Republicans want us to believe?

I doubt it. But based on facts

I've been able to learn, I think he's dishonest and sleazy enough not

to get my vote.

For instance:

He tearfully indicted the

tobacco industry, invoking a relative's fight with cancer, in a speech

to sympathizers in that cause. But when addressing tobacco farmers, he

spoke with pride of his previous involvement with tobacco. The inconsistency

is bad enough, but to use a family member's personal struggles that way

is shameless.

He paints himself as the Sir

Lancelot of the environment and accuses Republicans of destroying the

planet, yet he makes money from a zinc mine that is polluting a river

that runs through his family farm. His response is that the EPA has cleared

him of violating its standards. Surprise, surprize! The EPA works for

him. Earlier reports indicated high levels of pollutants.

He participated, along with

his entire party, in the character assassination of Newt Gingrich based

on lies, and continues to perpetuate those lies. For instance, Newt once

predicted that, if given the option of a well-run managed care plan as

part of Medicare, more and more senior citizens would take that option,

and an antiquated bureaucracy that runs the current program would wither

and die on the vine. Now Gore repeatedly quotes Newt as saying he wanted

Medicare to wither and die on the vine. That's a gross misrepresentation,

a.k.a. a lie.

Don't get me wrong. Newt brought

a lot of his troubles on himself. But that fact doesn't excuse this sort

of thing, not if you believe in fairness (a word that Democrats like to

use early and often).

There's the Buddhist temple

thing, and the fund-raising phone calls from taxpayer-funded phones, and

there are plenty of other examples.

You can't hang him for any

one of them, but when you add them all up, you don't get the impression

that the idea of honesty and fair play hold any great fascination for

this man.

But, as I said at the top,

maybe I'm just too naive. The screaming headlines in the Republican flyers

indicate that at least some in the GOP believe the only way to combat

a dishonest campaign is with some exaggerations of their own.

And people are just gullible

enough (see Bill Clinton: the last eight years) that my cynical side tends

to agree.

Is honesty even possible in

politics today?