There’s proof of what I was saying. Liberals don’t think Obama broke his promise because, well, he’s their guy. If McCain had done the exact same thing those same people would be giving themselves hernias lifting up his transgression.
It was, at worst, a broken promise. For it to be a lie, he would have to have KNOWN he would ultimately opt out of public financing. There was no intent to decieve.
I would also point out once again that it’s a much different thing than lying about an opponent.
McCain did try to do the same thing.
For such staunch defenders of integrity, you’re really splitting hairs. A broken promise is a lie to most Americans, I’d guess.
Like saying your opponent supports 100 more years of war in Iraq?
McCain did say he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Look, there’s a normal amount of framing and fudging of an opponent’s words (like how McCain keeps saying Obama will raise taxes on those who make $45K a year) which is expected as part of the game, just like tere’s a normal amount of grabbing and holding in football.
But McCain is taling it to a whole new level by not just distorting or spinning Obama’s words but making complete fabrications.
The sex ed ad is even worse. He sunk about as low as it’s possible to sink with that ad. The false accusation along with the doctored image. He went just about as far as he could to call Obama a child molester without actually saying it. That’s not a normal amount of hooking around the net, that’s a Marty McSorley stick to the back of the head.
Yes, a bit. He took a joke and made it sound like McCain seriously doesn’t understand what American’s lives are like. And did it in an acceptance speech that was supposed to herald a new era in American politics.
The context was a FUCKING JOKE. FactCheck agrees with me, not you. There is no point in debating you further on this topic.
What was the joke? I don’t get it. He said “rich” was $5 mil and then said “that’s going to be distorted.” Distorted how? Why did he SAY 5 mil? He said it. Obama quoted him accurately and in context. McCain has given no OTHER answer to the question. It makes no sense as a “joke.” Factcheck can slob my johnson.
I must say, John, that I, like most of us, was watching. It wasn’t exactly a joke. I don’t know what the hell it was. A wild-ass stab? I mean, McCain said “$5,000,000/year?” and didn’t say anything else. In this case, I feel as capable of judging as factCheck, because I did in fact see the event, just as they did. He was not prepared to define “rich,” and when forced to, defined it as obscenely high, commenting that he’d take flak for it in order to innoculate himself from that flak. That wasn’t a joke. It was an attempt to have it all ways, or an attempt to dodge the question.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
John, your obsession with being “even-handed” has led you to become a whole new political animal, you are a radical centrist, extremely non-partisan. The comparison fails for truthiness.
Certainly its true that the “100 years” line exaggerates McCain’s position, but it exaggerates, it is not an invention out of whole cloth, it is not a complete and utter lie. McCains does favor remaining in Iraq until “victory” is acheived, whatever the blue hell that word means in this context. (What does he mean, “victory”, anyway. I don’t know, do you?) Apparently, he believes that Iraq will become a clent state, like S. Korea, where American troops are welcome, and the government is an enthusiastic supporter of American policy, and will happily lend itself to American strategic goals. This is a geopolitical hallucination.
This is, almost certainly, utter nonsense. Point being, the real truth about McCain’s policy WRT Iraq is not much less batshit that the exaggeration.
Now, on the other hand, we have the tawdry suggestion (an oldy but a goody in the pantheon of tighty righty sleaze-o propaganda - “The Libs want to sex up yer kids!”…) that Obama favors explicit sex education for toddlers. (“And here we see Tinky Winky buggerig Laa Laa! Can you say “sodomize”? I thought you could!..”)
Its extreme, its inflammatory, and…here’s the main point…it has no relationship to the truth whatsoever, in no way, shape or form! It is a lie, not merely an exaggeration. It is not “a bit” sleazier, unless a 35 megaton thermo-nuke is “a bit” more destructive than a hand grenade.
[Off topic]
I know it was during the Bush Admin, but I can’t remember the origin of “truthiness.” Can someone refresh my memory?
[/Off topic]
It was coined by Stephen Colbert.
Lil’ Stevie Colbert, may the Goddess bless him and keep him snug to Her bountiful bosom!
(Hey! No fair, I raised my hand first! grumble grumble, just 'cause he’s “special”. sheesh…)
Thanks!
McCain did NOT say he wants 100 more years of war; he said the contrary, that a long-term presence would depend upon no U.S. casualties. Obama didn’t exaggerate McCain’s position, he assigned a completely false one. And believe me, I accept that this is part of the game. I’m not one of those (apparently a large group on this board) who gets the vapours when he hears a politician doing what politicians do. I am, however, pointing out that the litmus test for some appears to be that if Obama does it, it’s normal to-be-expected stuff (or outright denials that what he said is false), and when McCain does it, it’s beyond the pale.
Why isn’t this, at worst, a distortion, akin to “100 more years of war”? If McCain is playing to the populace who believe NO sex education for kindergartners is appropriate, why isn’t this an exaggeration, excusable in the same way that Obama is being excused in this thread? How does this misrepresent Obama’s position in any way more significantly that how Obama misrepresented “100 more years of war”?
There is now a sizable inventory of Palin falsehoods that have moved into the “given” category for countless columnists and pundits–it’s easy to see who has an axe to grind just by spotting one. Palin urged the city librarian to ban books; Palin opposes all forms of sex education, and any reference to birth control is anathema to her; Palin views the war in Iraq as a mission from God. I’ve heard variations on these multiple times in just the past few days, and I’m not talking about on this board. I’m talking about from columnists, and others with a national audience. Why isn’t Obama held to the same standard of integrity, then, as the one suggested in this thread? Why isn’t he expected to unambiguously denounce these misstatements?
If you take this as your cue for explaining how these assertions are “largely true” or that they may be distortions, but minor ones, for me you’re betraying your bias. It’s already been said–people’s filters for detecting “lies” seem to be distinctly partisan. The outrage consequently rings hollow and just as false as any of the alleged distortions.
I’m not a centrist. I’m simply pointing out that both politicians are playing fast and lose with the truth. My impression is that McCain is doing it a lot more than Obama, but Obama is doing it, too. Like **Stratocaster **, I don’t really care that much, because it’s just part of the political process. From what I’ve read, it appears to have a long tradition in this country, going back at least to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Politics is a dirty, sleazy, business. Obama is trying to stay above it all, and to a large extent he is. But he jumps into the mud every now and then wit the rest of them.
Neither the sex ed thing nor the lipstick comment were made up from whole cloth. Both candidates took something the other actually said, and twisted it to mean something else. You are splitting hairs on this.
Of course, the problem there is that if U.S. casualties continue, he also wants a long-term presence. Unless he’s defined what “winning” means and I missed it. Really and truly, it’s not that I’m trying to argue this point with you; it’s that I don’t understand the defense. And I’d really, really like to.
Here’s what I understand; the question of focus is: When does the U.S. pull out of Iraq? By McCain’s words, the U.S. will leave Iraq (i.e., end the war) when we’ve “won”. If the U.S. is suffering casualties, we haven’t won yet. But if the U.S. is not suffering casualties, then he’s still OK with keeping troops in Iraq. I do not see how either of these positions allow for troop withdrawal; thus, there is no end to the war.
Does your defense rest simply on the use of the word “wants”?
There’s no difference between saying you want to stay in Iraq for 100 years and saying you want 100 more years of war. The one necessitates the other.
I think because Mr. Obama is not saying these things about Mrs. Palin. Is he responsible for what the nutbars sending “you-have-to-know-this” emails have to say?
These comments are the same as the “Obama is a secret Muslim”, “Obama wasn’t even born in the USA” garbage I get in emails all the time. Does anyone require Mr. McCain to “unambiguously denounce these misstatements”?
My admittedly limited exposure - in other words, my anecdotal experience - of these ridiculous email “facts”, has been far more of anti-Obama than anti-McCain crap.
I think it’s a great thing, that the deluge of sludgey lies is falling on McCain and Palin’s heads for a change.
Back in the days of Watergate, one meme was that Nixon was either a crook or a fool. There was no middle ground. Either he’d authorized illegal actions (crook) or he was too dumb to see how the coverup worked (fool). We know how that one worked out.
In light of this article in the NY Times, McCain is either incompetent or puts his election before the welfare of the country. If his team did not vet Palin, he was incompetent. If they did, discovered this stuff, and put her forward as a reformer to solidify the base, he has put your country at risk of falling under a tin pot dictator if he does not finish his term.
I just finished reading that article before coming here, and all I can say is :eek:
Chilling.