Trump picks a fight with the wrong guy.

In a typical bit of Trump’s sleazy dishonesty he has taken a snippet of video of Dr. Fauci out of context and used it in an ad to make it appear that Dr. Fauci is endorsing him. Dr. Fauci is not having it and letting anyone who will listen what he thinks of such sleazy nonsense.

11 thoughts on “Trump picks a fight with the wrong guy.

  1. Why do you use the words sleazy and dishonest to describe Trump’s campaign ad?

    It is true that Dr. Fauci’s words are extracted from their original context, but it is also true that in the context of the ad Dr. Fauci’s words have the same meaning as they did originally. At the time he spoke them, he was praising and defending the administration’s response to the pandemic. The ad uses the quote in the same way.

    It seems to me this particular Trump ad is more “honest” than many.


  2. You obviously do not think it is “sleazy” and “dishonest” to mislead the public. Trump does it almost every day and yet you continue to be an enthusiastic True Believer.

    Let’s look at those two words . . .

    sleazy : “contemptibly low, mean, or disreputable”
    dishonest : “not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief”

    It is “contemptibly low” and “not honest” to create an ad that makes it look like Dr. Fauci is endorsing Trump or even that he is saying the government could not have done better than it did. That ad is “sleazy and dishonest.” I think so. Any reasonable person would think so. And, of course, Dr. Fauci thinks so or he would not have gone public with his deep displeasure.

    Political ads are often less than completely honest. That is true. But the problem with this ad is of a different sort. It is not dishonest about the candidate. It is dishonest about another person. It may even be actionable by Dr. Fauci. He has spent a lifetime building a reputation for probity, political neutrality and respect for science. A false claim that he endorses Trump is a direct attack on that reputation.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. RE: “You obviously do not think it is ‘sleazy’ and ‘dishonest’ to mislead the public.”

    My argument is that the ad is not misleading.

    RE: “It is…’not honest’ to create an ad that makes it look like Dr. Fauci is endorsing Trump or even that he is saying the government could not have done better than it did.”

    The ad doesn’t do either of those things. In fact, if you “fact check” it, both interpretations fall apart.

    The Wall Street Journal described the ad yesterday:

    “The 30-second Trump ad released last week says ‘President Trump is recovering from the coronavirus, and so is America’ and goes on to note ‘together we rose to meet the challenge, protecting our seniors, getting them life-saving drugs in record time.’ It then features Dr. Fauci saying ‘I can’t imagine that anybody could be doing more.’

    “The quote was pulled from a Fox News interview in late March when Dr. Fauci was asked if he had ever seen as large a public response by an Administration to such a health threat. He responded: ‘We’ve never had a threat like this, and the coordinated response, and there are a number of adjectives to describe this, impressive, I think is one of them. We’re talking about all hands on deck.'”

    Fauci’s “endorsement” both in the ad and in the original, is an endorsement of the success of the national, federal response to the pandemic. It is also a statement that the response went well, which is not the same as saying it “could not have done better than it did.”


    1. I will go with how Dr. Fauci sees the ad. I believe him to be fair and honest. The WSJ? Not so much. He believes that the impression the ad gives is FALSE. That is good enough for me.

      Was Dr. Fauci consulted about the use of his image and words in the ad? Did he approve such use? The answer to both is . . . No. Leave aside that the ad is misleading, using someone without their permission in such a way is “sleazy and dishonest” in and of itself. Obviously.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. How do you propose to use Fauci’s 10 minute speech ‘in context’ in a 30 second ad that had many points to cover? Fauci’s quote was used in the same way it was said at the time, asserting that a vigorous response was made.


        1. I propose that you do not use ANY of it without his permission. That is “sleazy and dishonest.”

          Further, those words from March were attached to events through October. A lot has changed since March.

          You don’t get to say what Fauci was saying when a quote is taken out of context. He does. And you have got it wrong. He says he was talking about the efforts of the task force who were working round the clock in March. Not Trump. Not the government.

          By the way, as usual Trump is incoherent. This time about Fauci. One minute he is the highly respected authority. The next he is an incompetent who does not know what he is talking about.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You need to read more carefully. I did not say that it was illegal to use Fauci’s statement the way they did. I said it was “sleazy and dishonest” and that they should have sought his permission if they wanted him to appear in their ad. They should have done that not only because it was “sleazy and dishonest” not too, but because they have now generated a lot more negativity than whatever they gained by fabricating his endorsement.

            Plenty of behavior that is legal is also “sleazy and dishonest.” Most of Trump’s tweets fall into that category.


    2. By the way, the words that you claim to be true in the ad (now) and when they were said (then) is specious at best. The interview that the sound bite was clipped from was in March. Whatever opinion anyone had in March is irrelevant to the situation six months later. A lot has changed. A lot of people have died and many similar countries have done a far, far better job of fighting the pandemic than we have. Taking a quote from March and making it apply to October is just one more way the ad is “sleazy and dishonest.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Whatever opinion anyone had in March is irrelevant to the situation six months later.”

        It is true that time marches on, but the observation means less than it appears to. It is reasonable to assume that actions taken in March affected outcomes in October, which is the message the ad conveys. Besides, if Dr. Fauci has ever said anything different about the federal pandemic response, I’ve never heard it. He certainly didn’t contradict the point in his criticism of the ad.


        1. If the individual states that his words are being taken out of context, then there is no reason to not believe him/her. Yet it is OK for others to misrepresent what was said.

          Got it. I just you all remember that as time marches on.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s