Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Chief Rum]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Well, I don't know that the doggedness of refusing to not be heard is necessarily exclusive from my desire that Flasch follow the course in life that brings him true happiness.

Or are you saying that in a pragmatic world, one cannot freely express his own opinions? I think if you're willing to accept those consequences of doing so--that you are happy with them--you are free to freely express those opinions. So long as you live in a nation where you are allowed to do so.

Fortunately, we do happen to reside in such a nation.

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

[TazFTW]

Minnesota Poll: Obama, McCain are dead even in state

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

[Flasch186]

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.

[Flasch186]

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

Obama raises $66 million in August

Ben Smith 1 hour, 34 minutes ago

Sen. Barack Obama raised $66 million in the month of August, making it his best month ever and the best in American political history, an aide said Sunday morning.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama is releasing that number after suggestions that his fundraising was failing to meet expectations. It puts him on pace to substantially outspend John McCain in the last two months of the race, in which McCain will be limited to spending the $84 million supplied by the Treasury under public financing rules.

Obama's large take, and the expectation that he'll raise even more in the race's final two months, may put to rest some Democrats' worries that he'd made a mistake by opting out of public financing.

It doesn't mean the Democrats will outspend the Republicans this year, though. The Republican National Committee's cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee, in combination with swelling outside spending, will likely allow McCain to level the playing field, though the fact that Obama has raised the money himself, in small chunks, gives him direct control over how it's spent, and fewer concerns about technical limits on spending.

An Obama aide said the campaign added 500,000 new donors to its rolls in August. The new figure — which shatters his previous one-month record of $55 million — also demonstrates how the increasingly heated, nasty race has energized Obama's fundraising and raises expectations that he will raise that much or more in each of the next two months.

Obama's tally suggests that McCain's late-August choice of Sarah Palin, which has energized conservatives — though largely too late for them to contribute directly to McCain's campaign — may also wind up deepening Obama's reserves when its full effect is felt in his September report.

The McCain campaign raised $47 million in August.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that the Obama campaign had $77 million on hand; it had just under $66 million on hand at the end of July, meaning that it spent roughly $55 million last month.

[Grammaticus]

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.

ABC Misrepresents Palin Quote in ‘Holy War’ Question
by FOXNews.com
Friday, September 12, 2008

Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”

The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.
In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”

Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:

“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.

But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.

Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

“Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

“Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,” Bounds wrote.

In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”

A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.ABC News did not respond to requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

ABC’s mischaracterization of Palin’s words was not the only one in the media. The Washington Post also did some last-minute clean-up in one of its articles on Palin — a front-page story Friday with the headline “Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska.”

As pointed out by The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, the original version posted online used harsher language than the one that hit Beltway newsstands early Friday morning.

The original passage, written by staff writer Anne E. Kornblut, read:

“Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’

“The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin’s statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday’s anniversary.”

But in the print version, and the version now appearing on the newspaper’s Web site, the article softened its claim a bit by swapping in the last line with this: “But it is widely agreed that militants allied with Al Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.”

[Flasch186]

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).

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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.

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.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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.

[Flasch186]

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.'

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Slippery slope, wanna start digging up her quotes and other people's quotes to hold them to exactness? Both camps will hate that world I'd think.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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.

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?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I really wish a moderate, fiscally responsible arm of the Republican Party would split off from the far right and join the Libertarian Party (and hopefully moderate the extremes of position in that party with which I disagree, largely foreign policy) or form their own party with elements of more socially-conservative centrist Independents and moderate Dems.

But unfortunately, such a thing happening would likely only result in the Republican Party as a whole becoming splintered, with neither faction powerful enough to move on its own platform, essentially handing the country to the left and moving us toward a socialistic position.

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...)

[Buccaneer]

relatively catastrophic political events

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think most voters don't care at all if Palin or Biden has been to Ireland or Iraq or Madagascar. Well, lets put it this way: The voters who haven't made up their mind already about Palin are not likely to be moved by this.

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

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

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.

[sterlingice]

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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.

[JPhillips]

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

This week, non-partisan fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have called Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) out for lies in his attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). But on Fox News Sunday today, former Bush political adviser Karl Rove dismissed the organizations, claiming that “they’ve got their own biases built in there.” “You can’t trust the fact-check organizations,” said Rove.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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!

[Flasch186]

**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.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

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.

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.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

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.

[Flasch186]

Rove also had this to say today:

(CNN) -- Former Bush adviser Karl Rove said Sunday that Sen. John McCain had gone "one step too far" in some of his recent ads attacking Sen. Barack Obama.
Karl Rove said both candidates are guilty of going too far in their attacks.

Rove has leveled similar criticism against Obama.

"McCain has gone in some of his ads -- similarly gone one step too far," he told Fox News, "and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

The Obama campaign immediately leaped on the quote.

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said McCain's ads have gone too far," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a statement sent to reporters minutes after Rove's on-air comments. Rove masterminded both of President Bush's successful White House bids.

Rove said both candidates need to "be careful" about their attacks on each other.

"They ought to -- there ought to be an adult who says, 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and won't we get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?' " he said.

Obama on Saturday accused McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of avoiding the issues to "distort" his record.
Don't Miss

* Aide: McCain campaign 'sleaziest' in modern history
* CNN poll of polls: McCain up by one point
* Election Center 2008

"They're going to talk about pigs, and they're going to talk about lipstick; they're going to talk about Paris Hilton, they're going to talk about Britney Spears. They will try to distort my record, and they will try to undermine your trust in what the Democrats intend to do," he said at a stop in Manchester, New Hampshire.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds criticized Obama for showing "zero restraint," considering what Gulf Coast residents were facing after Hurricane Ike. Bounds said the "attacks mark a new low from Barack Obama."

The Obama campaign shot back and accused McCain of "cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history."

McCain said last week that he thinks the tone of the campaign would be different had Obama agreed to appear with him in town hall meetings across the country.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign announced Sunday that it had raised $66 million in August. The new total bests the campaign's previous high of $55 million, which came in February during his tough primary fight with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The Obama campaign said more than half a million new donors contributed in August, when the Illinois senator accepted the Democratic presidential nomination and named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. The campaign had more than $77 million in cash on hand at the end of August, compared with about $66 million in July.

On Saturday, McCain's campaign reported raising $47 million in August. That haul also set a monthly record for the Arizona senator, whose campaign says it received a financial shot in the arm after McCain picked Palin to join the ticket.

Obama has rejected public financing, calling the system "broken" -- a decision that frees him to continue raising money for November.

McCain has accepted federal matching funds for his general election campaign, giving him $84 million to spend for November. The money comes with strict spending limits, but the Republican National Committee's victory fund can continue to raise and spend money on his behalf.

With Palin on the campaign trail, McCain has been seeing increased numbers and energy at his campaign events.

The two will hold joint town hall meetings sometime early this week.

A McCain adviser said early plans are to hold the town halls in western Michigan and Wisconsin, although the exact details of where and when they will be held are still being worked out.

McCain laid low Sunday, attending a NASCAR race in Loudon, New Hampshire.

Obama had no public events, but Clinton was scheduled to campaign for him in Ohio.

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."

[Vegas Vic]

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.

[Big Fo]

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.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I agree that the GOP has drifted significantly far from this ideal, which has caused me much angst. My choice then is to follow the party to the depths of social conservatism with which I have sharp disagreements (religion-based law, lack of gun controls, civil liberty infringements) and ignore its abandonment of fiscal responsibility, or turn to a party which better fits my beliefs (most likely the Libertarian) but thus stripping me of any real personal power in the realm of politics.

The Democrats have moved even further from my ideals in the past ten years, so they are certainly not the answer.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

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.

Im sure he's just a disgruntled ex-employee

[larrymcg421]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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

[Arles]

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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).

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

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 sure

SI

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think Rove's *trying*

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.

[st.cronin]

I like Karl Rove, I really do.

[Flasch186]

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so youre *trying*, sleight means you think he's lying now right, he's doing some sort of reverse spin which fits your needs

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).

So you know better than everyone else the motivations. You and Bay need to have a talk.

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.

I had no idea that you were this spun.

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.

I dont remember you being this spun 2 years ago during the other elections. You cant admit anything, not one thing that might go against your platform or stubbornness. At least others including myself admit when she does something right but you cant even admit one thing wrong, not one. It truly amazes me, i want you to know.

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.

The Campaign is lying, has lied, has been exposed for it, they continue to do it. (Lying tying Iraq to 9/11 recently)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

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.

[Arles]

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.

[Flasch186]

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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.

[Arles]

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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

[Flasch186]

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm referring specifically to the Bridge to Nowhere

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.

ebay plane

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.

and firing of the chef lies.

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.

Individual items that aren't really that big of a deal. But then why lie about it?

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

...
Notable instances where we haven't: the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice (to name two).
....

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.