The thing that strikes me as silly in all this is that, really, what difference does it make if Palin went to Iraq and visited troops? Let's say she did. Let's say she actually went 3-4 times and she has a degree in foreign relations and her best friend is a Muslim (i.e. much further than currently claimed, even by lying McCain/Palin aides).

Even said all that, her foreign experience is still next to nil. Really, the whole reason this happened is because the Republicans (rightly) questioned Obama's foreign relations experience. That is a big negative for Obama, no matter how the Dems try to spin it. I'm not saying the Repubs shouldn't have criticized Obama on this (I think the opposite actually), but they should have handled Palin's experience differently.

The easy answer would have been to select another VP candidate or vet this one a lot more carefully or decide from the start that they were going to accept the hit that would come from a lack of foreign policy experience on the part of Palin. But the GOP is trying to have and eat its cake at the same time. They want to rip Obama for lack of foreign policy experience AND avoid charges of the same for their own candidates.

And if there's anything here that pisses me off about it, it's not the lying that has Flasch on edge--it's the stupidity. I hate stupid people. Sometimes genetics are the reason, and I can forgive those people. But I find that most "stupid" people aren't stupid at all--they're just lazy, uncommitted to the more difficult, but more truthful and honest way. They don't want to work as hard, so they make shit up to make it go away. I fucking can't stand people like this.

The Repubs were right to choose Palin from a campaign perspective, because it is clear her selection has made a difference here. It might save the election for the GOP in the long run. And I don't know that they had another candidate who could have brought them this sort of bounce back AND given them foreign policy experience. So let's say they were right to criticize Obama for his foreign policy record, and were correct for choosing Palin (from an election standpoint, this isn't an argument for her fitness for the position). They should have said, "Yes, she is about as experienced with foreign policy as Obama, but she's the VP, not the P."

Of course, they didn't because lying was easier. :rolleyes:

I just found a contrast between the idealism of your sig and warning Flasch about being idealistic. Nothing big.

Minnesota Poll: Obama, McCain are dead even in state

And with that poll, RCP has moved Minnesota from leaning Obama to toss up

I didnt see SNL last night but saw a clip of the Palin/Clinton (Fey/Pohler) skit and, on mute, it was sick the resemblance between Fay and Palin.

Its a sad state when ALL of this money, on both sides, will be 'blown' on campaigning at all and worse than that is the negativity we will endure for the next 50+ days :(

Obama raises $66 million in August - Yahoo! News

Palin said she visited Kuwait and Germany on that trip in the Gibson interview.

Now it looks like ABC and Gibson played games with the video.

Gibson better watch out, his credibility is heading into Dan Rather territiory.

GOOD! I had stated I thought editing was bad and Im glad that ABC and Gibson may have to feel the repercussions of this. I hope they reap what they sow. Like posted by someone else if you want to edit the order crap is shown or put commercials in, so be it, but a question then an answer should be showed, or quoted in full.

The 'whether or not' she went to Iraq isn't important in the Gibson interview because they were already 'recharacterizing' her trip. It was a while ago when they inferred she visited troops in Iraq so that it looked like she had visited the 'military theatre' and average Joe American would think, 'hey, she went to Iraq...just like those other politicians I see on TV'. Now, and in the Gibson interview they had already begun the 'retelling' of the campaign aides statement(s).

That sucks. Too bad it wasn't a live interview. Anyway, I don't see anything about her saying she only visited Kuwait and Germany in that article.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what your complaint is here. The money that is spent supports other aspects of the economy (buying television ad time (albeit at a discounted rate), printing supplies, telecom, food and service industry in the places candidates visit, etc.). It's not like the money is just set on fire.

I guess I didnt look at it like that and could see the money put to better use but your point is well taken. Then I would move onto phase two of my complaint, which is, it stinks that it seems it will be spent 'negatively.'

Slippery slope? My god, the slippery slope and falling off cliffs have been going on in American politics ever since Jefferson's candidacy and presidency. It only has magnified in the past 16 years due to the near real time access to every move, words and actions of everyone (whereas before we hear about it sometimes after the fact). It is the nature of man's politics to lie, deceive, present half-truths and engage in secrecy because it is the method to obtain and hold on to power in a democratic election. It is truly expected because the game is to beat your opponent in a battle for largely uneducated, uninformed or superficial voters. However, just because the past 16 years have been a daily slippery slope and falling off cliffs broadcasted everywhere, the amount of rancor and extremism have been nothing compared to the 19th century.

There is absolutely nothing in history that suggests it (man's methods for obtaining and holding onto power) will change, just the medium. It is not a cynical view but a realistic one based on mountains of evidence. It is the nature of power which you cannot change but the solution is, as it always have been, is to focus on the actions and attitude of what you can do to make a positive difference. The Serenity Prayer should be your guide.

I saw the excerpts on ABC News Thursday night and I'm sure the "exact quote" segment was there. Was it edited out for 20/20 later?

Yeah, the key to that working would be that they would have to get as many Democrats on board as Republicans, otherwise there would be too much of a shift in power in favor of one party. I wonder what it would take to get the most moderate 1/3rd of the Republican party and the most moderate 1/3rd of the Democrats to split and form a new political party.

I'm sure it would take a series of relatively catastrophic political events to happen at this point, but at the rate that the two major parties are drifting to their social extremes while both throwing out the idea of fiscal responsibility, the opportunity for either a third party rising up or a major shake up in one of the major parties is becoming wide open. (At least I like to think that...)

That would be true for last time that has happened, it was during the extreme emotions leading up to the Civil War where the Republican party emerged between the Southern/Jacksonian Democrats and the Northern Whigs. But it wasn't like they appealed to the middle of each, just a reaction to catastrophic political events.

I don't see something like happening now simply because we have access to too much information and our obsession with economic richness will prevent any major changes to our desired lifestyles. What it could take, hypothetically, without a catastrophic event is simply a charismatic leader willing to fight outside of the huge red/blue party machines.

Which, of course, begs the question- if voters *don't* care, then why lie about it?

SI

In theory I think it's possible for a third party candidate to win a major election, but I can't see a scenario for turning that into a successful party. The money, infrastructure and stable of candidates would be very difficult to find. A single person can spend millions and see what happens ala Perot, but building a party is much more difficult.

The political structure, as set up by the two parties, is such that it is optimal for 2 parties. Odd how they make laws designed to keep themselves in power ;)

SI

Heh, I would view the sig as not so much idealistic as representative of my stubborness to make myself heard on those issues which most certainly require it. You're right, though, that it is a more difficult road to travel in a world that calls for pragmatism and moderation.

Looks like there's a surge in the war against truth.

I agree with Rove. Never trust fact checkers that can give thorough sources for all of their information. Fuckin' commies are what they are!

**shaking head then putting face in hands**

Where will it end? You cant trust anyone so just trust us. Its like I'm watching the movie V for Vendetta.

No, that article was about the gods will portion. I was just indicating that Palin herself said the trip was to Kuwait and germany during another portion of the Gibson interview. That was a subject that was getting kicked around earlier in the thread.

I didn't see the original airing, I just saw segments after the fact. I also saw that specific segment on a youtube clip, which did include her questioning the accuracy.

Rove also had this to say today:


IMO this is like asking Benedict Arnold whether or not he is loyal. "Well yes, but it depends on when you ask as to whom Im loyal to."

It looks like having the Republican Convention in Minnesota might be paying dividends. In two new Minnesota state polls, it's dead even in this one, and Obama is up by 2 in this one.

I can't believe even Karl Rove is calling out McCain. Can't wait for some Republican to complain about media bias since Rove's quotes came from a CNN article.

Aren't you stripping yourself of that power if you continue to vote Republican? You are voting for something you don't like (social conservatism) and something you won't get(fiscal responsibility). The longer people like you keep letting the social conservative agenda get advanced at their expense, the further it's going to go. You're not putting any kind of pressure on the Republicans to stop running out this sort of agenda, you're encouraging them to continue on their path.

Voting Liberatarian might be reasonable and in a small way effectual. I would argue that voting Democrat(where you'd atleast be guaranteed a social agenda you agree with) would go further toward that goal.

Im sure he's just a disgruntled ex-employee :)

Some better polling news for Obama today:

Hotline/FD national poll has him up +2. Maybe the GOP convention bounce wearing off? We'll see what tomorrow's polls bring.

The two Minnesota polls are worrisome, but Research 2000 has him up +9 in New Jersey and Des Moines Register has him up +12 in Iowa.

I think most had Obama winning NJ and Iowa fairly easily (at least NJ... Iowa was supposed to be leaning Obama, partially because of its proximity to Illinois).

Though Gallup Tracking and Rasmussen Tracking have McCain up by +2 and +3 respectively.

I think Rove's *trying* to be somewhat intellectually honest. For those that listen to opinions from the right, you'd know he's pretty much lambasted inaccuracies by the Obama campaign on Fox News. I'm guessing this is the new "fair and balanced" Rove ;)

I'm still amazed people on the left are still parsing/selectively choosing Palin's words and expecting questionable "gotchas" to pay dividends. The people who like Palin aren't going to be changed by any of this. And some on the fence (esp women) are going to start defending her more and more as articles like one on ABC news' interview keep coming out. Also for the earlier comments by the RNC on keeping Palin in the news is helping them, the media is actually doing it because they think it helps Obama.

If you would have told me that back in July the republican nominee would completely galvanize the party, help McCain in the polls and pretty much take every bullet thrown at the ticket for 1-2 months (and even generate sympathy). I would have said you're crazy.

Every day that goes by with more criticism on Palin from the left on the top of news cycles is one less day to have that be a criticism on McCain. I can't believe it, but it looks like McCain is actually the favorite to win right now. As someone from Arizona who's seen McCain for years, this is amazing to me. He really should have no chance in this election - he speaks little on the economy, has little background in health care, has terrible skeletons (first wife, keating, Cindy's brewery ties,...). Yet, all we're hearing is whether Palin actually visited troops on the Kuwait border instead of inside the theater in Iraq. Now maybe I see Rove's base for his comments. He's frustrated the McCain/Palin ticket is leading the media/democrats into the "briar patch" better than he ever did with Bush.

Sure, but there was a Marist poll that showed NJ narrowing, so I'd still consider this good news. As for Iowa, it's still a battleground states and one of the ones Kerry lost, so it's good to have a huge lead there.

Yeah, but those came out earlier and I already mentioned them. Rasmussen has shown a consistent 3 pt lead for McCain, but Gallup has narrowed considerably over the past few days from a 5 pt lead down to a 2 pt lead.

I'm sure ;)

SI

I wish you were more like Jon and just said, "the lying is ok, because it's to 'win'" at least then you could have some credibility but when you only tout the talking point for one side it is so transparent its sick. Now I know im considered a lefty but all I want is the truth from both parties to come out in full and then the majority of the country votes according to having all the truthful info. You seem to not even want that! Honestly, Im incredulous but im extra sensitive to it, so be it.

I like Karl Rove, I really do.

BTW Asian markets open shortly and tomorrow could be a historic day. Scary and historic.

Actually, I was poking fun at Rove and Fox News to a lesser degree. Both are in the tank for McCain and thinking that one comment like this makes them "balanced" is a little funny. Of course, I think MSNBC is completely in the tank for Obama (and most of CNN as well).

After a week of watching AC360 and Olbermann/Matthews completely on the offensive on Palin (well before the Gibson interview), I think it's safe to say they weren't lingering on it to be "helpful" to McCain. I also didn't think it was a secret that CNN and MSNBC lean left and Fox lean right.

Now, you're just being disingenuous. You've been following every post I've made for 15 pages telling me how spun I am. So, either you were lying or this post is pure pandering.

Oh, I know. I'm rooting for McCain/Palin and will present arguments that often tend to go in their favor. I am not impartial and I have no desire to be fair to both sides with each post. See, it's not that hard. You may want to try a post like the above sometime. You will feel better.

Your indignation is noted. In fact, it's been noted for about 20-25 pages or so. For me, it's not a big deal that she met our Armed forces on the outskirts of Kuwait as opposed to inside the heart of the Iraq battle. I also think she's been fairly upfront with that in the two interviews/speeches she's done where the subject was brought up. But, it bothers you. Fair enough.

This subject has been more eloquently dealt with by many others to this point, but I'll take a stab at it as well. Both sides are going to try and depict their candidate in the best possible light and slam their opponents. There are moments where both will go over the line, they will get called on, but life will go on. It's the way US politics has been for a long time. For me, I'm OK with it all and actually enjoy the reactions from both sides (which is why I regularly watch AC360, Matthews and Fox). If this process really creates this amount of indignation - especially for something as innocuous as the Palin Iraq theatre/border of Kuwait issue, then perhaps there are better activities for you with your blood pressure in mind than following politics.

The majority of the country will never vote "according to having all the truthful info" regardless of how much heartburn you give yourself. Now, if you want to make it your job to be "honesty cop" on both sides, I'd love to see you start doing that. But it's no big deal if you want to focus 80% of your energy on criticizing the right. I've focused almost 100% of my energy on helping McCain/Palin, so you're welcome to do the same.

Your Shtick of "truth detector" is getting a little silly though. You're like the leftist version of Bill O'Reilly.

best post youve ever written....however feel free to post the lies that Obama or his campaign have stated. they truly are harder to find. not nonexistent just anomalies while the ones on the right seem to come out daily (media bias i am sure). Truth cop I am not BUT I dont think honesty is not something to be strived for. You are correct though in stating that it seems a great majority of people are willing to accept the spin from their side and I just dont get it and it does make me sick and that probably is not a good thing and something I should work on but it truly goes against my fabric....and I dont like falafel.

I actually enjoy reading what you write (and most here). I have no problem taking certain biases into account when reading posts and encourage others to do that with me as well. The point of a thread like this is not to have every post be completely impartial, intellectually honest or even truthful. It's to allow both sides to have their say and follow this incredibly interesting election until November. That's all I want from it and think if most people treat it like that, the debate will be interesting and fun for all. ;)

that would be a more healthy outlook for me if I can adopt it.

I wouldn't trust that Hotline poll. The sample size is very small and sesms prone to swings.

It would also be more healthful to focus more on other activities that you can control, like your business, your family and your community. You come across like you never, ever have experienced a political election cycle, nor have known about anything that have gone on in politics in the past 200 years. You can control your actions, as well as be an example to those you influence but to take things personally of those things you cannot control, that's not good.

Man, if I got upset at all the spin and deception in a major political campaign, you'd have to lock me up in a padded cell somewhere. ;)

The fact that Flasch186 can still make solid posts and be somewhat civil is fairly amazing. It must be something in that tea ;)

Some weeks, it's not bias if one side is making all the news. The last two weeks (much more 2 weeks ago than last week), it was one candidate, Palin, specifically, who kept making all the questionable statements. Oh, hell, questionable statements, my ass- they're lies.

The difference is that Fox, being a propaganda machine, is all but ignoring what happened while other news outlets are actually reporting on it. I'm pretty sure the week of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" that CNN and the "liberal" network media outlets (I don't think MSNBC existed at the time) covered that 24x7 because lies are ratings.

The stuff that Palin has said and is being called on are out and out lies. These aren't your garden variety political hedgings or parsed words or misquotations with qualifications like "my opponent voted to steal money from little children" (read: they didn't pass the super pork laden bill but voted for a different pork laden bill). The "I visited troops in Iraq" thing falls under this as she was in Kuwait and at a border crossing. Pretty close- not the truth but not a lie.

These are flat out lies like "the sky is green" and "the grass is red" and hoping no one will call them on it. I'm referring specifically to the Bridge to Nowhere, ebay plane, and firing of the chef lies. Individual items that aren't really that big of a deal. But then why lie about it? Unless you're really hoping items like that, when she's on a really limited exposure and limited leash with what she talks to the media about, are key items in creating her image and now all of those things turn out to be false.

SI

perhaps, but I gotta tell ya, that I feel like giving up the 'good' fight means Im giving into Chief's statement, "The World Sucks" and it almost deflates me. I wish more people would try to 'elevate' instead of what I see in this country over the last 20 years, not just in politics, as a depreciation of expectations and standards.

Actually the caffeine may be a negative my friend but If you want to buy some Ill be more than happy to make you some :)

I think it's fair to be for a major funding project when you are running for governor, then change your tone after 8-9 months in office. In fact, I would call that fairly decent leadership. The chicken way would have been to keep doing it as not to piss off the people who had lobbied for the funding.

She said she listed it on ebay and she did. Again, maybe a little deceptive as she sold it privately after no one purchased it on ebay. Still, the point was she put a plane that the prior governor sunk money and time into and sold it. Again, not much deception here.

We really don't know what happened here. We know the guy had issues with driving while drinking, tazing his 10-year old son and (if you believe the Palin family) threatening them. Now, I'm willing to admit that she overstepped some boundaries on trying to get the guy fired. But, the case hasn't been settled yet and while the most damning issue you've posted, it's not something that's likely to have an impact once the Palin spin comes out.

As far as I can tell she never lied on the ebay comment or on the Iraq trip. Maybe I'm missing something here. They were certainly embellished a bit by her supports and the McCain campaign, but nothing that I would classify as "lies" or outright deceptions. The point of both is that she listed a boondoggle for sale and sold it and that she visited the troops in the middle east. Throw in the entire AC/Candy Crowley piece over two nights on the out of context "god" comment and I think it's fair to say CNN and MSNBC were much more critical on Palin than the facts (or most unbiased people) would feel is necessary. It's the same way that Fox wasn't as probing as they should have been.

I'd be disappointed if any President, Democrat or Republican, agreed to allow our troops to be tried under the International Court of Justice. We simply aren't going to cross that line.

On Kyoto. This is a pretty ridiculous thing to hold against Bush. This went down on the order of 97-1, something close to that, in the Senate when Clinton was in office. Before you can blame Bush for a treaty, you need to consider the reality.