Video: Sorting Out Fact From Bull Pucky

Oh Those Outrageous Health Care Reformers

I know this video is making a point through humor, but at the same time it is hard to tell how low the opposition to reform will go to scare the bejesus out of people. It also occurs to me that most of the people who are our representatives are actually ordinary people like you and me who have run for office for some reason that is beyond me.

The legislation that they pass will actually apply to their own families, their friends, their acquaintances, those that work for them, those they know and love. They are human beings after all. Yes, even the Democrats are human beings, although lately I'm not entirely sure about that with respect to the Republicans.

The scare tactics, the lies, the distortions have been used to manipulate us before. Many of us believed a number of members of the Republican party when they were in power, trusted that they were being truthful with us, giving us reliable and factual information in order to determine whether we support what they think is the right course of action.

Think Iraq!

It's kind of like that expression, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, except that if it sounds too outrageous to believe, then it probably is just that.

The Day in 100 Seconds

Good Monday, We made it to Monday, buckle in, General Motors, symbol of America's might, pardon the pun, engine of the U.S. economy, Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, manicured(?), managed bankruptcy, new day for Michigan, restructuring, liquidation, punch in the stomach, American tragedy, steel the American dream, fit to be tied, absolutely devastating, Wall Street continues to get theirs, refuse to kick the can down the road, viable, achievable plan, iconic American company, rise again, positivity is the new black, rise like a phoenix out of the ashes, no interest, running GM, Car maker-In-Chief, President & CEO, Government Motors, back in the spot light, talking terror, potential proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, Dick Clarke, he obviously missed it, must have missed 9/11, chattering, not my recollection, haven't read his book, I don't have much tolerance, he's still out there some place, probably buried, inaccurate

Balzheimer's Disease & Freedom Fighter's for Information

Dick Cheney: Incredible

Ishikoff is polite. He suggests a fact checker after watching and listening to the former Vice President's recent remarks on Fox News.

Dick Cheney's statements are covered with a high concentration of bull pucky.

What D.L. said

Good point D. L.

Hughley: Now I listened to those tapes and I'm not going to hide my affinity for this guy. I never met him before then but to me we have become such a trivial place that we will impeach a man for having sex, or lying about having sex with a woman. In California we will impeach a guy because he raises taxes on license plates because energy gets out of control. We'll impeach a guy for saying some things on tape. But a man can take us to war and lie and we won't do a damn thing about that. That makes me so mad. source: Crooks and Liars

Condoleezza Rice on NPR: "...I'm going to have to object, because the United States has always kept to its international obligations..."

I listened to the interview with Condoleeza Rice on NPR today while I was on my Big Yellow School Bus. My jaw no longer falls open when I listen to these people.

Number 1 - CondiGate

About 1:30

Here's the transcript of the part of the conversation on Guantanamo that would have dropped my jaw in the past. I'm just tired of listening to it now. Very tired.

And Guantanamo wasn't sort of the only issue that tarnished the U.S. image. There is also the treatment of terror suspects, waterboarding, other methods of torture ...

Well, you know that I'm going to have to object, because the United States has always kept to its international obligations, which include international obligations on the convention on torture. The United States, the president, was determined after Sept. 11 to do everything that was legal and within those obligations, international and domestic laws, to make sure that we prevented a follow-on attack. And information to prevent an attack is the long pole in the tent when you're dealing with terrorism. You can't wait until somebody's committed a crime and then go and punish them.

The Indians — I was just in India because of the Mumbai attacks, and they were going through the same issue of how you prevent attacks and how do you get the information that you need to prevent attacks. But a lot has happened since those days. We've been able to know more about the structure of al-Qaida. We have other ways to prevent attacks. Our democratic system has made judgments both through Congress and through the Supreme Court on various detainee issues. The administration has adjusted its policies to reflect those processes. And so, as a democratic society does, we've come to a different place on those issues than we were in the first months after Sept. 11.

But I'm going to tell you, when you're facing, every day, anthrax attacks, and when you're facing, every day, a threat matrix as thick as your phone book about what the next attack might be, if you have a legal way to get information to prevent those attacks, you have an obligation to do it. source: NPR

The world will need to go back and reinstate the Geneva Conventions at some point. We are hopeful that after January, the United States of America will be on board once again.

I get the impression while listening to the interview on NPR today, that Ms. Rice did sound much more relaxed and at ease, seemingly more comfortable in her own skin. Relief can have that effect on a person.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis still part of his lobbying firm and a liar

I guess what we have here is another 'liar, liar pants on fire moment'. If it weren't so obscene, it would be childish.

Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, has remained the treasurer and a corporate director of his lobbying firm this year, despite repeated statements by campaign officials that he had ended his relationship with the firm in 2006, according to corporate records.

The McCain campaign this week criticized news stories disclosing that, since 2006, Davis's firm has been paid a $15,000-a-month consulting fee from Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant recently put under federal conservatorship. The stories, published Tuesday by NEWSWEEK, The New York Times and Roll Call, reported that the consulting fees continued until last month even though, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement, neither Davis nor anybody else at his firm did any substantial work for the payments.

for source - click here

I thought it was my imagination, but now others are agreeing with me about the lies, liars and lying of the McCain Campaign

I had noticed that the lies of the McCain campaign were pretty severe during this election cycle. I appreciate the validation from Joe Klein. I started calling it lies a bit sooner than the media actually. I just assumed though that it was probably me and the fact that I am just a big baby who doesn't know how political battles are fought, and of course also that I am a whining Liberal. What do you think? PD

John McCain and the Lying Game

By Joe Klein Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2008

Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. You might well ask, What has McCain done to deserve this? What unwritten rules did he break? Are his transgressions of degree or of kind?

Almost every politician stretches the truth. We journalists try to point out the exaggerations and criticize them, then let the voters decide. When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth — Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government — but McCain's untruth illuminates a general policy direction, which is sketchy but sort of within the bounds. (Obama's plan would increase government regulation of the drug and insurance industries.) Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends.

McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.

Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.

This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin — out of pique, I believe — questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President.

The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign.

for source - click here

Factcheck.org on McCain's "One Accomplishment" Sex Ed Ad

Personally, I don't even want to mention this vile ad, but I think it is worth showing what a blatant lie it is to accuse Barack Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners, when the legalisation he supported was to teach young kids about bad adults who seek to harm them.

They have a similiar education series at (age appropriate) in Indiana. Parents are encouraged to contact the administration to discuss concerns,view materials before hand, or opt out their child. It's not mandatory.


Off Base on Sex Ed

September 10, 2008

A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

Summary

A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergartners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.

In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator's record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.

Analysis

The ad is called "Education" and has received a good bit of free airtime, having been run repeatedly on cable news networks. It pairs pictures of kindergarten children with Obama looking confused.

A Factual Failure

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad: "Education"

Announcer: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education.” That he’s “elusive” on accountability. “A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.” Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.

John McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

The ad claims "Obama's one accomplishment" in the realm of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners."

It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergartners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:

SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:

SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.

The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.

Obama is often quoted as saying that when it comes to sex education in public schools, “it’s the right thing to do ... to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” placing an emphasis on the word "appropriate." But Obama has also said he does not support, "explicit sex education to children in kindergarten."

In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles:

Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate."

Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergartners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

Besides the Obama-Keyes race, this allegation also surfaced during this year's party primaries when Mitt Romney claimed Obama supported sex education for five-year-olds. (Obama misleadingly fired back that Romney supported the same policy.)

His Only Accomplishment?

The ad claims the bill was Obama's "one accomplishment." This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past "go" in the Senate. So it was not an "accomplishment" at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments.

He was a cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, which allowed for an increase in the number of Chicago charter schools and required the Chicago Board of Education to enter into a formal partnership with the Chicago Teachers Union to "advance the Chicago Public Schools to the next level of education reform." He was also a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren't U.S. citizens.

On the federal level, Obama sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007. All three amendments were passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and became law. One amendment proposed language that would create a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. He also proposed language to support summer learning programs and boost their math curricula. And he put forward a requirement that women and minorities be represented in the President's Science and Technology Summit. Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they're accomplishments nonetheless

Cherry-Picking Quotes

The ad also features three cherry-picked quotes from the media, highlighting negative comments about Obama's record and ignoring those directed at McCain. The announcer quotes Education Week contributing blogger David Hoff, saying, "Education Week says Obama 'hasn't made a significant mark on education.' " The quote is accurate. But the ad leaves out a quote Hoff gathered from Arizona's Casa Grande Elementary School Superintendent Frank Davidson:

Davidson (via Education Week): I don’t think [McCain] has a strong track record of putting education at the top of his priorities.

McCain had used the information about Obama before, and in response, blogger Hoff encouraged readers of the magazine's election blog to "Read the Obama story and the McCain story and you can decide who has a better track record on K-12 issues." We agree, you should.

The ad then quotes a July 7 editorial from The Washington Post, which said "that he's 'elusive' on accountability." Those words did appear in The Post's July 7 editorial. At the time, McCain had no education plan to critique, but later, in August, The Post revisited both candidates' proposals and said McCain's was "both late in coming and still a work in progress." It also said "of the two, Mr. Obama has given the issue more attention."

The last quote used in McCain's ad is attributed to the Chicago Tribune and says that Obama is "a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' " This is actually from a piece by Steve Chapman, former associate editor of The New Republic and contributing writer to Slate and the conservative publications The Weekly Standard and The National Review. The piece isn't a Chicago Tribune editorial at all, though it's made to appear that way in the ad. And Chapman, none too pleased about how his opinion piece was featured in the ad, responded in a Sept. 10 Tribune blog entry with this:

Chapman: ... the ad itself doesn't bother explaining how the candidates differ on school vouchers, the subject of my column. Instead, it insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught how to use condoms before they're taught to read. Right. And Joe Biden eats puppies for breakfast.

We couldn't have said it better, Mr. Chapman.

–by Emi Kolawole

Sources

Krol, Eric. "Obama clarifies sex ed views at Benedictine," Chicago Daily Herald. 6 Oct. 2004.

Hoff, David. McCain vs. Obama: The Whole Story. 29 Mar. 2008. Education Week. 10 Sep. 2008.

Editorial. Focus on School Reform. 7 Jul. 2008. The Washington Post. 10 Sep. 2008.

Bill Status SB099. Illinois General Assembly.

U.S. Congressional Record. 27 Aug 2007. S5038

Related Articles

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding

Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.

Sliming Palin

False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

FactChecking McCain

He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.

Hit the Brakes

An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.

Liar, Liar --Pants on Fire: Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post - McCain-Palin's Whoppers

Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post wrote a column where she is highly critical of John McCain's 'whoppers', and brings Sarah Palin along for the ride as well. I'm calling them blatant bold-faced lies, although I have referred to them as whoppers in other posts here on Political Peon. Ms. Marcus is conservative. I am not.

In the 2008 race, and especially in the past few weeks, the imbalance has become unnervingly stark. Ideological differences aside, John McCain's campaign has been more dishonest, more unfair, more -- to use a word that resonates with McCain -- dishonorable than Barack Obama's.

Both candidates are guilty of playing trivial pursuit in a serious season, campaigning from gotcha to gotcha. Obama also has eagerly taken every cheap shot -- McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, doesn't get the economy, can't count his own houses. Neither candidate is running the honest, confront-the-hard-questions campaign he promised.

She says that Obama has 'eagerly taken every cheap shot'. I do not think Obama has been eager about it at all. Democrats in recent years have been very slow to take 'cheap shots'. Al Gore. John Kerry.

That is one of the reasons we have lost elections. Not enough retaliation to the cheap shots from the other side.

When Paris and Britney is played over the airwaves over and over again, and casual observation validates that the nonsense is affecting the psyche of the electorate, John McCain provides an opening by not even knowing how many houses he owns, and then finding out that he owns a LOT of houses, then you go ahead and make your point.

Obama's alleged 'cheap shots' have been opportunities seized as John McCain makes statements that provide for a counter-balance to McCain's cheap shot advertisements. I don't know what set the McCain campaign off, except being down in the polls and not having anything to offer, except more of the sames policies that we have had under the George W. Bush.

Now that both candidates have been properly chastised for not playing nice, Ms. Marcus goes on to point out that John McCain's 'whoppers' are just a little bit different.

McCain's transgressions, though, are of a different magnitude. His whoppers are bigger; there are more of them. He -- the easy out would be to say "his campaign" -- has been misleading, and at times has outright lied, about his opponent. He has misrepresented -- that's the charitable verb -- his vice presidential nominee's record. Called on these fouls, he has denied and repeated them.

The most outrageous of McCain's distortions involve Obama on taxes. He asserts that Obama's new taxes could "break your family budget," and that an Obama presidency would inflict "painful tax increases on working American families." Hardly. Obama would lower taxes for most households, and lower them more than McCain would. The only "painful tax increases on working American families" would be on working families making more than $250,000.

Likewise, the McCain campaign has its story about Sarah Palin, and it's sticking with it -- facts be damned. She said "thanks but no thanks" to that "Bridge to Nowhere," except that she didn't: She backed the bridge until it was unpopular, then scooped up the money and used it for other projects. More than a year after McCain began railing against the bridge, Palin, then a gubernatorial candidate, said the state should build it "now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

Palin sold the gubernatorial jet, on eBay and for a profit -- except that she didn't. She didn't take earmarks as governor -- except for the $256 million she sought last year, and the $197 million wish list for 2008.

I can't imagine what more that needs to be said about this, except to remember that we were lied and manipulated as a nation into the war in Iraq by the Bush administration. Nearly every agency in the bureaucracy which is our government from the Justice Department to FEMA has been politicized by the Bush administration.

We have been told again and again that only Republicans can keep us safe, only Republicans can manage our economy, only Republicans have God on their side. It ain't true, but that's what we've been told over and over again, sometimes directly and sometimes more insidiously.

John McCain and Sarah Palin can lie with such ease, and repeat the lies again and again and again and again. If they are elected, what else will they lie to us about?

'True Whoppers' by Ruth Marcus - The Washington Post - click here

Obama Campaign - New TV Ad: "Honor"

by Christopher Hass

Monday, September 15, 2008 at 08:45 AM

Following a weekend of scathing media reports and editorials on John McCain’s unprecedented campaign of dishonor and dishonesty, the Obama campaign today released a new 30 second TV ad called "Honor." In 2000, John McCain said he wouldn’t “take the low road to the highest office in the land.” But eight years later, he’s running one of the most dishonest campaigns ever seen.

"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth,"
~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07

Army Times on McCain & FCS Program: Sometimes you gotta wonder does John McCain even know what he believes anymore?

John McCain is either the masterful flip-flopper to rival the label that was attached to John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, or he is a liar, or confused and maybe even dimented. John Kerry was accused of being full of um, ...nuance.

John McCain is a Republican though so typically nuance would not be his forte`, and it seems that many Republican's do not support nuanced policy positions, preferring black and white to what I call a bit of critical thinking now and then.

Therefore, the only conclusion that I can come up with is that he is a big fat liar, a flip-flopper or that he is confused and dimented. In any of the foregoing conclusions, he is not a good prospect for President of the United States in my humble opinion.

Here is a snippet of what set me off this time:

On Sept. 8, the Republican presidential candidate told a rally crowd in Lee’s Summit, Mo., about an Obama video message to a liberal advocacy group.

“He promised them he would, quote, ‘slow our development of Future Combat Systems,’” McCain said, according to wire reports. “This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

Flashback to July, however, when his campaign furnished McCain’s economic plan to The Washington Post, declaring that “there are lots of procurements — Airborne Laser, [C-17] Globemaster, Future Combat System [sic] — that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed.”

In fact, McCain has long criticized the over-budget, behind-schedule FCS program. In 2005, he blasted the Army for allowing the program to balloon to $161 billion, and forced the service to rewrite the main FCS contract.

So where does McCain really stand? Some bloggers and analysts have suggested that he used the term “future combat systems” generically. Obama’s campaign maintains their candidate was speaking specifically about FCS, in which case McCain may be twisting his rival’s words.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute called it deceitful.

“McCain’s interpretation of Obama’s position is typical of the way in which the Republicans have twisted Democratic views in order to undercut their opponents and at the same time obscure the past positions of the Republicans,” Thompson said. “Future Combat Systems is the centerpiece of Army modernization. However, McCain has been more critical of it than anyone else in the chamber. Obama has been much more detailed and thoughtful in his comments about future military investment than McCain’s very superficial statements.”

Officials with the McCain campaign did not return phone calls and emails requesting clarification. read more here

I'm not sure who John McCain is this days. He sure doesn't look like the guy who ran for President in 2000 though. Not one bit. It's kind of sad and pathetic actually. PD

Kos Speaketh on Earmarks: "Palin admits to being earmark abuser"

kos has written a piece of Palin and earmarks from the Charlie Gibson interview. It's one thing to see Sarah Palin on video. It's an entirely more disturbing thing to actually read what she has said.

Sarah Palin admits to being an earmark abuser, and yet her rationalization at the end of the of this segment on Alaska's jinourmous earmark benefits from the federal government turns into an incoherant babble.

GIBSON: The state of Alaska, under OMB figures in 2008, got $155 million in earmarks for a population of 670,000. That's $231 per person in Alaska. The state of Illinois, Obama's state, got $22 per person. You got ten times per person as much. How does that square with your reforms?

PALIN: We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark request since I came into office.

GIBSON: But you still have multiple of any other state.

PALIN: We sure are -- and this is what -- you go out and you ask any Alaskan this. This is what I've been telling Alaskans for these years that I've been in office, is no more.

Huh?

The facts are clear. She liked receiving earmarks from congress, she lobbied for them with ferosity, and she was succesful at it. Now, since she has been chosen to be the VP pick for John McCain, Sarah Palin says she was against earmarks all along. Where I come from, that is called hypocrisy. I'm a bit reasonable about hypocrisy though. Everyone gets a few chances, and gets forgiven for some mistakes, but my perception as a whole of the McCain-Palin campaign ticket is that they are pathological liars. PD

Lying for the Team: Another Republican surrogate takes a crack at it

Supporting Documentation

Bridge to Nowhere Lie Debunking

The Washington Post questions her 'truthiness'.

The Wall Street Journal questions her 'truthiness'.

CBS News questions her 'truthiness'.

The Aassociated Press questions her truthiness.

Analysis

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was a hit with the party faithful at the GOP convention, but some of her claims were amiss. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also delivered a few faulty remarks.

A Bridge Too Far

Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.

Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.

When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”

Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009. read more here

"We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it." Brian Rogers, McCain spokesman

Wheels come off Straight Talk Express?

Posted: Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:33 PM

by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray - For a candidate who prides himself in "straight talk" -- and whose political image in part is based on that truth-telling reputation -- Saturday proved to be a brutal day for John McCain and his campaign.

First came a front-page New York Times piece noting that McCain "has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth." There was also an accompanying fact-check of McCain's latest TV ad, which called it the "latest in a number that resort to a dubious disregard for the facts."

The Washington Post gave "four Pinnochios" to McCain's recent assertion on "The View" that Palin never took earmarks as Alaska governor. Then the Boston Globe reported that Palin didn't really travel inside Iraq as has been claimed. And Bloomberg News said that the McCain camp may not have been exactly truthful in estimating the size of its recent crowds. "Now officials say they can't substantiate the figures McCain's aides are claiming."

To top it off, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”

Not surprisingly, the Obama camp has pounced on all this, issuing a memo to reporters entitled "Unraveling the myth of the Straight Talk Express." The memo argues, "Since naming Governor Palin as their vice presidential nominee, the McCain campaign has distorted, distracted, and outright lied to the American people about her record in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that a McCain/Palin Administration would be nothing more than a continuation of the failed Bush policies of the last eight years."

And it concludes, "While the media is slowly starting to call the McCain campaign on their dishonest tactics, McCain’s staff boasts that they don’t care. As a McCain spokesman told the Politico, 'We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.'" read more here

McCain-Palin Campaign Motto: When in doubt, don't just lie --tell a WHOPPER!

As the lies keep coming and coming and coming (I'm thinking of the Energizer Bunny commercials right now), we have yet another lie. Now mind you, these are not little fibs or distortions, at least not where I am come from, but WHOPPERS. Not the hamburger kind either.

The lies they are remind me of a time not to long ago, when Americans were lied into a war in Iraq that has lasted for seven years now. Could it be that Karl Rove, who is famously know as 'Bush's Brain' is running John McCain's Campaign of Lies?

WASHINGTON POST by By Anne E. Kornblut

WASILLA, Alaska -- Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin are scrambling to explain details of her only trip outside North America -- which, according to a new report, did not include Iraq, as the McCain-Palin campaign had initially claimed.

Palin made an official visit to see Alaskan troops in Kuwait in July of 2007. There, she made a stop at a border crossing with Iraq, but did not actually visit the country, according to a new report in the Boston Globe.

Earlier, McCain aides had said that Palin visited Iraq, and expressed indignation at questions about her slim foreign travel.

The campaign also said she had been to Ireland; that turned out to have been a refueling stop.

In her ABC interview, Palin said she had also been to Canada and to Mexico, where her advisers said she went on vacation. read more here

Ok, perhaps I was too harsh in my opening. This one may not constitute a WHOPPER after all, although there have been plenty of those. But if you fly over a country in an airplane, or go to a border near a country but not cross the border, does that actually constitute going to another country? I don't think so. I'm changing my mind --it's another WHOPPER!

Peace and Love,

PD

Definitions of whopper on the Web:

a gross untruth; a blatant lie

whacker: something especially big or impressive of its kind
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The Whopper sandwich is the signature product sold by Burger King.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whopper

something remarkably large; an outrageous lie
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whopper

'Mad about You' star and creator Paul Reiser on the 'Battle of the Bullys'

I've seen kids bullying kids. Mostly verbal. Hell, I've had kids bully me as an adult on the street when I corrected them and they'd say to me "My Dad's an attorney and he can get me out of anything!" I've seen kids being nasty with other kids. I always try to stop it. Always. I've been driving a school bus of middle-schoolers for a year and 1/2, and I haven't seen or heard anything like what has been coming out of the Palin-McCain camp in the last week. It's extremely difficult to stop adults though. I'm sorry, but since Sarah Palin is taking the lead in the campaign, I think it's only right to give her top billing.

Paul Reiser vents in the Huffington Post about the nonsense going on in our political life of late. He says it about right for me, and I've said it before. This is childish, immature and not a very good example for our kids. And then Barack Obama said it rightly just the other day -- "Enough!" Reiser says it with humor though, and you can't beat humor for pointing out the absurdity of politics and politicians.

"I think the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different if Senator Obama had accepted my request for us to appear in town hall meetings all over America," the Senator from Arizona tells us.

Am I just losing my friggin' mind? Seriously. I keep looking around the room to see if I'm living in some suddenly altered state where everything we know is now called the opposite, and nobody notices. Or can stop it.

"I wish I didn't have to take your lunch money, but you should'nt of hadda brung it."

We're in the 3rd grade again. The skinny, smart kid who just moved in to the neighborhood is getting roughed-up by the asshole bully. The kid who hits you in the head with your hand and says, "Why're you hitting yourself? Why're you hitting yourself?"

"Um, actually I'm not. You're hitting me."

"You calling me a liar?"

"No, I'm just pointing out that..." SMACK!

"Why're you hitting yourself?"

And there seems to be no one to appeal to. There're no grown-ups around when you need 'em. No one to step in and say, "Alright, that's enough now. We don't do that here, fella." And in the absence of any authority, the asshole gets to keep doing it.

"Why're you hitting yourself? SMACK! Why're you hitting yourself?"

From the few minutes of the GOP convention I could stomach watching, all I could think was that Giuliani and Sarah Palin were doing some big-person, lethal version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

America: "Well, respectfully, Governor Palin, it could be argued that you are, in fact, relatively inexperienced."

Her: "I know you are but what am I?"

"Hm? No, perhaps you misunderstood. We are talking about you."

"I know you are but what am I."

"Well, Governor, just listening to your speech, you seem awfully caustic."

"You are."

"And, frankly, a little bitter."

"You're bitter."

"I mean, where's your sense of humility?"

"I'm rubber, you're glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you."

"My God - you're... dangerous."

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Maybe that's the problem. Obama treats us like adults, and McCain's team treats us like children.

Obama seeks to inspire and raise us as a nation. McCain's people want to reduce us to infants.

Obama asks us to be deep. And courageous.

McCain prays that we're simple. And cowardly. read more here

Many Republicans need to go back to 'Kindergarten' to understand what a lie is

Ari Melber on CNN calling a Lie a Lie
to some Republican named Brad

The Jed Report

Palin-McCain lies on the stump, not likely to stop

In a Washington Post Article today, we are finding out that the lies of Sarah Palin and John McCain are not going to cease.

Naked LIE also known as 'I supported that 'Bridge to Nowhere', before I was against it.'

"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for -- then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.

Naked LIE repeating "Obama will raise your taxes! Obama will raise your taxes! Obama will raise your taxes!"

Palin and John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, have been more aggressive in recent days in repeating what their opponents say are outright lies. Almost every day, for instance, McCain says rival Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000.

Fed up, the Obama campaign broke a taboo on Monday and used the "L-word" of politics to say that the McCain campaign was lying about the Bridge to Nowhere.

Nevertheless, with McCain's standing in the polls surging, aides say he is not about to back down from statements he believes are fundamentally true, such as the anecdote about the bridge.

I'm not on the side of countering a blatant, bold-faced, naked Republican lie, with a blatant, bold-faced, naked Democratic lie at all. The fact is that what they do works, and the sad commentary on America is that it seems to work even better when it is a blatant, bold-faced, naked lie. I'm still not espousing returning naked lies for naked lies, but I do think the 'honor' argument is one that should be taken up because blatant, bold-faced, naked lies are not honorable for the 'Maverick', POW, newly on board for 'Change' candidate, but we can't figure exactly what it is that he intends --that would be John Sidney McCain.

Peace and Love,

PD