O noes. Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry!!!

I guess this is the McCain camp’s last desperate, sleazeball attempt to steal Pennsylvania. They’re basically just making things up. In an interview with the SF Chronicle nearly a year ago, Obama was talking about the need to transition to clean coal technologies, and his cap and trade policy on coal. One particular audio clip has been snipped and sent to Drudge and other righty-sphere outlets:

The headline on Drudge and other sites is blatantly misrepresenting Obama as saying he would “bankrupt the coal industry,” when he never said or even implied any such thing. The kind of policies he’s talking about would actually HELP the coal mining industry, and are mostly futuristic theory in any case.

The McCain camp has its attack tard, Palin, out there working this on the stump and lying about it in an attempt scare people in PA, OH and VA into thinking Obama is going to shut down the coal industry.

It’s a truly vile, bottom of the barrel, patently dishonest tactic, and hypocritical as well, since McCain has said he wants to transition away from coal all together, while Obama just wants to change the rechnology for how to use it.

I expect this garbage from Drudge, et al, but McCain continues to stun me with just how low he’s willing to sink. Has this election really corrupted him that much, or or we now finding out that his (self-touted) reputation for integrity and decency has never been anything but a sham?

I always assume the very worst, so now I am convinced that this will work, and that McCain, with the help of his media minions (Fox will spend all of monday pounding this like it’s Jessica Alba in a cheerleader outfit) will manage to scare and trick enough people in those vital battlegrounds to thwart God’s will and steal another election for the forces of scum and death.

I should have known they would never let a brother into the White House. They will do absolutely anything it takes.

This isn’t really any different than claims that McCain wants a 100 year war in Iraq. And what the hell does this have to do with Obama’s race? You think they wouldn’t do this if it was a White guy they were running against who said the same thing?

I don’t think it’s going to have mujch affect. At least here in Ohio (another big coal state) he has already been pre-empted in this attack by ads showing Barack in favor of “clean coal technology” (however that might work out in terms of process – sequestration or other.) Even the coal companies have been running ads that say “See? Here’s something both candidates agree on, clean coal technology; how often does that happen?”. along with recordings of both candidates backing coal. And these ads have been running for over a month.

I personally think that (coal-fired) boat has already sailed, it’s too late for such an ad to have much impact.

The difference is that McCain actually said that.

No he didn’t.

Look. It’s certainly my impression that McCain/Palin are doing this a lot more than Obama/Biden. But it has happened on both sides. Some of us don’t like it when either candidate does it, even if it’s the one we support.

Stuff the tu quoque, ok. For one thing, it’s still a fallacy and for another, it’s a particularly lame example of the practice. There is no functional difference between McCain saying he wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years and saying he wants a “war” for 100 years. There’s no war NOW, so it’s a meaningless distinction. Both statements call for 100 years of status quo.

There. You succeeded in getting me to change the subject. Now do you have an opinion on the actual thread topic?

And Obama actually said what is quoted. They are both examples of statements were taken out of context to lead to conclusions that are distortions.

No, he didn’t. He compared our potential future involvement in Iraq to our current (60 years strong!) involvement in Germany.
…and I already voted for Obama.

I agree that saying Obama will bankrupt the coal industry is a misrepresentation of his statements. A better representation is to say that he will massively increase the costs on lots of different industries in the name of a theory that has much more political than scientific backing.

Dude, how Dio works is that Dems get the benefit of the doubt while anything a Republican says means the worst possible thing it could in some way be twisted into meaning. But thanks for trying!

Well, the topic is politicians taking stuff out of context and using it against their opponents. I deplore it when it’s done by Palin, just I did when it was done by Obama. The difference is that you condone it when it’s done by your guy.

And what does this have to do with race?

What theory is that, Rand Rover? It surely isn’t Global Warming, a theory that has more scientific than political backing.

Obama did not say what the headlines and Palin are accusing him of saying. He didn’t say anything about the coal mining industry at all.

I’m doing the same as we speak (so to speak).

I’m not a Dem and you couldn’t be more wrong about “how I work,” so go fuck yourself.

Is the Obama campaign actually running any ads that accuse McCain of hoping for a 100 year war (or 100 year occupation)?
I am aware that there are several pundits and that there might be a 527 out there that make the claim from time to time, but I have not seen any official Obama ads that make that point.

In the last month, I have encountered multiple ads carrying the “I am John McCain and I approve this message” tag following really cheap shots and outright lies. I have seen ads from the Obama side that played up (probably unfairly) McCain’s association with President Bush or the earlier Republican dominated Congress, but I have not yet encountered an ad with the approvval tagline from Obama camp that has gone as far in terms of outright smears as those from the Obama camp.

He’s talking about clean coal technology, but Obama was only speaking theoretically in the first place.

All evidence I’ve seen points to me being right. This thread was really interesting in that we got to see you do both sides in rapid succession.

Wrong, it was global warming (or climate change as it’s called now).

The “brother” remark was just an attempt at satirical, fatalistic dismay.