Prevaricator, Equivocator, Truth Mangler: Liar

I prefer to call a spade a spade. Thus, I constantly -- my previous post, for example -- refer to Dubya as a liar. Josh Marshall, taking a diplomatic approach, refers to Bush's "belief in the utter malleability of facts."

Josh's post got me thinking about the continuum between the blunt and the diplomatic. Much as I would love to see Bush's reaction, I'm certain that we will not hear the democratic nominee call Bush a liar to his face during one of the debates. I doubt we'll even hear the nominee utter the word on the campaign trail. Is this because it's just too unseemly for a candidate to call another candidate a liar? They'll say he "misrepresented" or he "did not tell the truth." But those phrases are wishy-washy. Liar is a perfectly acceptable and accurate word. Why not use it? Is there a danger that the electorate is not ready to hear the word applied to a man they don't think of as a liar? Are prominent politicians in danger of being dismissed if they were to call Bush a liar? Are the euphemisms a form of self-protection?

Granted, the bulk of Bush's lies are of the "non-disprovable assertion" type. But he's got more than enough blatent falsehoods to qualify as a liar and be proven one by anyone desiring to make the case. Why not call a spade a spade?