At what point does a misquotation just become a lie?

Because we think this gets pretty close!

The Debicella campaign got very excited recently, drawing attention to a comment Jim Himes made at a New Canaan town hall meeting on August 12th. Himes was asked about his views on the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 a year and replied, "I'm still looking at it - I would say let them expire."

A direct statement against any extension of the tax cuts right? Erm, nope. The Debicella campaign conveniently forgot the rest of the response.

Here's the full reply, with the only part Debicella remembered underlined:

“Here’s where I am right now (on the Bush tax cuts). I think for under $250,000 for households, under $200,000 for individuals, I think we need to contemplate at least a one or two year extension of the tax cuts. The last thing we need to do now is take dollars out of the pocket of our middle class. On the ones that are in excess of $250,000, I’m still looking at it. I would say let them expire but for one thing, which is that there are a lot of small businesses running their tax returns into personal tax returns at that level—this gentleman here—so I need to look at that small business tax cut…" 




Quite a different story from the one Debicella wants you to hear.

Debicella seems to have decided that the best way to win a debate over economic issues is to simply change his opponent's views until they are less popular than his own. Misleading? Doesn't matter. False? Who cares.

What does it say about his own policies when he feels they only look credible in comparison to fictional statements?