The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Ad Watch

Obama Paints McCain as a Man of the Past

By Howard Kurtz
The Ad: 1982. John McCain goes to Washington. Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn't. He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail. Still doesn't understand the economy. And favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class. After one president who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same.

Analysis: This Barack Obama commercial, without quite saying so, screams one message: John McCain is old.

The spot tries to soften that attack with whimsical music and such amusing images as an early computer and a Rubik's cube. But it clearly paints the Arizona senator as a man of the past.

McCain has acknowledged that he doesn't use a computer and relies on aides to send e-mail, although he says his staff has shown him Web sites and blogs. Sending e-mail has never been deemed a qualification to be president, but it does suggest that he is out of sync with popular culture.

To say that McCain "still" doesn't understand the economy is a stretch. He told the Wall Street Journal in 2005: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." McCain didn't say he didn't understand the economy at all, and that was three years ago.

McCain has proposed $200 billion in corporate tax reductions. What the ad leaves out is that Obama told the Journal in June that he would also consider an unspecified reduction in corporate tax rates.

By linking McCain to George W. Bush -- who has faced repeated criticism about being out of touch -- the commercial both ties McCain to an unpopular president and paints him as remote from average people's problems. The ad never mentions that McCain is 72. It doesn't have to.

Posted at 1:23 PM ET on Sep 12, 2008  | Category:  Ad Watch
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: The Return of Jane Swift | Next: McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Everyone should just shut up. There is no reason to attack the canidates with verbal abuse. They are doing the best they can, and if they try then why are so many American citizens screaming their dislikes. I know. It is because Obama and McCaine are doing it to each other. Well, they are just being childish but that doesn't mean that America has to, too. They are setting a bad example but that doesn't mean we have to follow it. I think the best person is who shows pride in their race and doesn't scream their dislikes because the other one did it first is a man who deserves the respect he needs and desreves from everyone. So if I was 18 and they wanted my vote then they would have to stop acting so childish. And that goes to everyone in the world. Run your race cleanly and if you don't come out on top then at least you go down with pride. You don't have to vote and if I was in an adult's shoes then I wouldn't vote once in my life because neither of them deserve the presidency because they don't have pride or respect and in my way of thinking they ae uncivilized.

Posted by: 15 year old freshman | September 14, 2008 1:43 PM

You know what McCain's negative ads tell me? That he has no absolutely no apprehension in lying to the the American people. "Lipstick on a pig". Are you kidding me? I'm sick of being lied to and quite frankly, I'm just not that stupid.

Look, I have enough sense to be able to judge for myself what a candidate did or did not say. I'm really concerned that if McCain will stoop to these types of ads to win an election that the chances are pretty good that he'll lie to me too. Yes, I am absolutely looking for integrity in the next president and after the past eight years who can blame me? I'm trying to make an intelligent decision here and I haven't forgotten about all the guffaws McCain made in the primary season. I want you to make me believe this man is competent. Right now I'm still wondering if he's not just too old for the job.

Here's the bottom line. If McCain wants my vote he better start talking to me about more than Brittany Spears and lipstick! I want to hear about issues, not stupid attacks on the opposing candidate. I'm speaking for hardworking people from rural parts of th country to ordinary factory worker in metropolitan cities. Am I burned out on the negativity? You bet I am!

Posted by: Independent Voter | September 13, 2008 9:27 AM

Do the Obama people who made this ad realize the reason John McCain doesn't send e-mails or use a computer is because he has trouble typing on a keyboard due to the injuries he suffered as a POW in Vietnam?

How stupid are they to claim that John McCain is not qualified to be President because of an injury he suffered while serving his country!

Are the Democrats trying to lose this election on purpose? Really this has to be the dumbest campaign ad ever!

Posted by: daniel_holzer | September 13, 2008 12:40 AM

**********

Daniel, excellent point....do you think Democrats realize that a large proportion of the Reagan Democrats aren't using computers to read about Down's Syndrome on the dailykos! I hope there was a big buy for that commercial in Scranton and Cincinnati!

Posted by: Scott | September 13, 2008 6:49 AM


Looks like a SOLID BLUE NEW JERSEY is a thing of the PAST-

Marist 09/05 - 09/08 805 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Fairleigh Dickinson 09/04 - 09/07 872 LV 47 41 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 08/04 - 08/10 1468 LV 51 41 Obama +10
Rasmussen 08/04 - 08/04 500 LV 52 42 Obama +10
Monmouth/Gannett 07/17 - 07/21 698 LV 50 36 Obama +14

************************

Look out below....New Jersey!

14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus....and Seattle and Helena Montana and Raleigh NC, and...

Hey Democrats, how's that "Western Strategy" working out against the Senator from Arizona and The Governor of Alaska? Not so well, huh? I suppose to win you'll have to go after NC and Georgia again...oops.

Election 2008 Latest Polls
Friday, September 12
Race Poll Results Spread
Missouri Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 46 McCain +5
Oklahoma Rasmussen McCain 63, Obama 32 McCain +31
Washington Rasmussen Obama 49, McCain 47 Obama +2

Ohio Univ. of Cinci McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4

Thursday, September 11
Race Poll Results Spread
Ohio InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 47 McCain +1
Florida InAdv/PollPosition McCain 50, Obama 42 McCain +8
Michigan InAdv/PollPosition Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1

Colorado InAdv/PollPosition Obama 49, McCain 46 Obama +3
Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 56, Obama 38 McCain +18
Nevada InAdv/PollPosition McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Wyoming Rasmussen McCain 58, Obama 39 McCain +19
Alaska Rasmussen McCain 64, Obama 33 McCain +31
Idaho Rasmussen McCain 68, Obama 29 McCain +39

North Carolina Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17
New Mexico Rasmussen Obama 47, McCain 49 McCain +2

Mississippi Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 37 McCain +18
Ohio Strategic Vision (R) McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4
Michigan CNN/Time Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
Virginia CNN/Time McCain 50, Obama 46 McCain +4
Colorado PPP (D) Obama 47, McCain 46 Obama +1
Missouri CNN/Time McCain 50, Obama 45 McCain +5

Georgia Strategic Vision (R) McCain 52, Obama 39 McCain +13


Pennsylvania Quinnipiac Obama 48, McCain 45 Obama +3

Florida Quinnipiac McCain 50, Obama 43 McCain +7


Alabama AEA/Capital Survey McCain 55, Obama 35 McCain +20
Wednesday, September 10
Race Poll Results Spread

Montana Rasmussen McCain 53, Obama 42 McCain +11
North Dakota Rasmussen McCain 55, Obama 41 McCain +14

North Carolina SurveyUSA McCain 58, Obama 38 McCain +20
Pennsylvania Strategic Vision (R) Obama 47, McCain 45 Obama +2
West Virginia MBE McCain 44, Obama 39 McCain +5

Posted by: Scott | September 13, 2008 6:44 AM

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 4:49 AM

54gu88i59bpr6 http://www.486931.com/293409.html sm3mtr68siqlcg2

Posted by: kxr5gjhfr9 | September 13, 2008 4:12 AM

Do the Obama people who made this ad realize the reason John McCain doesn't send e-mails or use a computer is because he has trouble typing on a keyboard due to the injuries he suffered as a POW in Vietnam?

How stupid are they to claim that John McCain is not qualified to be President because of an injury he suffered while serving his country!

Are the Democrats trying to lose this election on purpose? Really this has to be the dumbest campaign ad ever!

Posted by: daniel_holzer | September 13, 2008 12:40 AM

Marist 09/05 - 09/08 805 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Fairleigh Dickinson 09/04 - 09/07 872 LV 47 41 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 08/04 - 08/10 1468 LV 51 41 Obama +10
Rasmussen 08/04 - 08/04 500 LV 52 42 Obama +10
Monmouth/Gannett 07/17 - 07/21 698 LV 50 36 Obama +14

************************

Look out below....there goes New Jersey!
14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Looks like Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus.
(nothing alleged about it!)

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 11:29 PM

Palins alledged affair http://www.theveep.com

McCain throws his BlackBerry (phone)
http://www.mccanes.com

Get the full Story on Bristol Palins Dude
Levi http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:06 PM

Obama is lying.
By choosing the old and washed-up Biden, an irredeemable Washington insider, as VP he is not exactly grooming for the future president.

Posted by: pete | September 12, 2008 10:43 PM

infact he disrespected all the women.

Posted by: linda | September 12, 2008 10:35 PM

Obama is the biggest radical and hypocrat in american history. He disrespect everyone and everything.

He disrespected American flag
He Disrespected American national anthem
He disrespected Bill Clinton calling him a racist.
He disrespected Hillary Clinton lying about her.
He disrespected Liberman
He disrespected McCain
He disrespected Palin.

Obama is untrustworthy and a con artist who only respect his anti-american wife and radical friends like racist pastor wright, convicted criminal Rezko, Fraud mayor Kilpatrick, Terrorists Ayers and Dhorn and other anti-socual elements.

He doesn;t have a class

Posted by: jen | September 12, 2008 10:34 PM

If John McCain had real intentions of cleaning up Washington, he would have started at home and carried out the "honorable" campaign he promised. What good is a country free of earmarks if it is laid to waste first by cultural warfare? If John McCain manages to win the presidency, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Intellectually honest people of all affiliations will never trust his word. He will be forever resented for perpetuating Rovian politics under the Orwellian banners of "Country First" and “Straight Talk”. And to think he once sounded so indignant when he complained that Rove and Bush "know no depths." No, John McCain, you know no depths!

Posted by: Honor=Obama | September 12, 2008 10:14 PM

Palins alledged affair http://www.veeppeek.com

McCain throws his BlackBerry http://www.mccanes.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:46 PM

Palins alledged affair http://www.veeppeek.com


McCain throws his BlackBerry http://www.mccanes.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:42 PM

Is it true that McCain
can not use
a
keyboard
because of
his POW injuries?

Posted by: dumbreddown | September 12, 2008 7:57 PM

Black Langley, you are a filthy racist and represent the worst type of person that this country produces.

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 7:04 PM

Did you see Gov. Palin's interview with "Charlie" on ABC just now? Wow, That Ball is still flying. I think she ripped the cover off of it!

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 6:58 PM

The choice is clear:

You either vote for McCain/Palin who represent a backward inbred uneducated (too lazy, not for lack of opportunity) electorate that for all demographic purposes will be extinct or significantly outnumbered by 2040. Why do you think they are pro-life?

Or you vote for Obama, who represents the future that is INEVITABLE. Whites will be the MINORITY by 2040. America is becoming a pluralistic society and will be completely a pluralistic society by then.

Feeling uneasy about an educated black man running for president? Don't worry, there will be a lot more Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Arabs and Indians with Harvard Law Degrees that will follow in his footsteps.

So put the can of duff beer down, turn of the tv, read the newspaper, stop having babies, get an education and perhaps you too can keep with the pluralistic educated populace that is outpacing you.

Posted by: Black Langley | September 12, 2008 6:43 PM

Mccain and Palin are both out of touch, or worse still they think their policies are mainstream. Does this sound mainstream to you?

Gov. Palin:
Raised taxes as the Gov. of Alaska

Misled America about the Bridge to Nowhere, in her first national speech (She fully supported it and only denounced it after the funding was cut anyhow) and continues to do so as many as four times a day on the campaign stump. She never returned the funds for the Bridge to Nowhere.

A 2006 question to Governor Palin …”Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?”
Answer: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

Wants to teach creationism in Science Class, subverting the US Constitution

Tried to get books banned at the local library

Fired her entire staff 10 days into term as mayor, for lack of loyalty

Used every available lever to get an enemy fired from his job, and is still lying about it

Put a gag order on her administration as mayor of a town of 6500

Milked the Federal Government for huge series of earmarks, by using Jack Abramoff lobbyists. The highest per capita earmarker in the nation: Palin (27 Million for a town of 6500)

Charged 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in her first year as Alaska Governor and 31 earmarks valued at $197 million this year. Considerably HIGHER than Barrack Obama’s Earmark list he released in March of 2008 in the spirit of transparency.

Billed taxpayers in Alaska $43,490 for staying in her own home.

Touts the need to address special needs children but only did so by stepping in at the last minute to support a bill that she was chided for NOT supporting previously despite her sister having a child with autism.

Doesn’t believe in Global Warming

Used Alaska First as her campaign slogan, which is the same one as her husband’s old party, the AIP, a secessionist organization she recorded a supportive piece for this year! She was also the keynote speaker for AIP on several occasions and her husband was an ardent supporter and member of AIP.

The AIP founder Joe Voglar once stated, “I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." and "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

Wants to ban stem cell research

Is on the record stating the Iraq war ”Is a task from God.”

8/28/08 Gov. Palin LIED on to Newsweek Mag. that she "sued big oil." Truth is - Alaska sued big oil in 2005 - Palin was not governor in 2005 nor was she even running for that office in 2005.

Gov. Palin sued to get Polar bears OFF the endangered species list.

In July when interviewed about the possibility of being the VP she stated that she did not know what the VP did.
Subsequently has been sequestered and hidden from the media until an appropriate time in which she has been provided with the answers to any potential questions the press may have with under two months left in till the election. Why not let her speak RIGHT NOW? Perhaps because she doesn’t know what to say or worse still she does know what to say and we will not like it.

Left her town Mayoralty with a huge debt, having outspent all around in her (21 MILION in debt)

When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

And, perhaps worst of all, Palin would insist that my 14 daughter carry and birth a rapist’s child

Out of touch? You betcha. Of course they wouldnt know that because McCain cant use a computer.

Posted by: feastorafamine | September 12, 2008 6:30 PM

The Obama campaign and the liberal media is in disarray, confused and foaming at the mouth after the Maverick, John McCain chose Sarah Palin, a woman reformer for VP. Their response has been a vicious attack on Sarah ranging from insults to smearing and the sexist tactics that brought Hillary's campaign crashing down.

Obama fractured and divided the democratic party when he rejected the choice of 18 million democrats and instead of choosing Hillary for VP, he chose an old Washington politician Joe Biden, and by this grave mistake in choice, negated the flag of "change" Obama had been waiving and replaced it with the "more of the same" one.

On the other side, The Maverick stole the mantra of change from Barack when he selected a woman reformer for VP, who has gained the respect of the State she governs as well as of the nation governors.

The McCain/Palin ticket has also given hope to all the 18 million former Hillary supporters who now have a very compelling reason to vote for the republican ticket, as a way to put their country first by electing a president that has the qualifications, experience and love for our country and at the same time elect a woman to the White House as equal partners in governance and leadership of our country.

Country First!
McCain/Palin!

Posted by: Manolete | September 12, 2008 5:53 PM

I'm for Independence from Foreign Oil AND Against Global Warming- So, I CAN'T vote Democratic this year, because your candidate panders to his Illinois Farmers! (So, I don't know what you're talking about)


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:55 PM

Graytok, it's surprising that a liberal "nuanced" thinker like you could so easily miss the point. So much for nuance. So much for the Democrats' hopes. Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory as usual.

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 4:51 PM

(McCain)BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN!
(McCain)BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN!
(Chorus)BOMB IRAAAAANNNNNNN!
(Scene)Bombs dropping from US Fighter planes
(Scene ticker)American soldiers dead
(Scene)American soldiers limbless/crutches
(Small sqaure McCain)BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN!
(Scene ticker)Price of Oil
(Scene ticker)Price of Gas
(Scene ticker)Budget deficit
(Scene ticker)National Debt
(McCain)BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN!
Arent you tired of dancing this tune?
Havent we heard this tune before?

Posted by: GeopoliticalGaffe | September 12, 2008 4:50 PM

Posted by: jill | September 12, 2008 4:41 PM

Oh, Graytok- Sprained finger?

"Republicans have no moral compass"
-greytok
*************************

Greytok, I'm prochoice, BUT your candidate takes it to the level of Dante's Inferno-
even NARAL, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer approved The Infant Protection Act, saying it was NOT a threat to Roe v Wade.
BUT NOT BARACK OBAMA!


"On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:29 PM

"Republicans have no moral compass"
-greytok
*************************

Greytok, I'm prochoice, BUT your candidate takes it to the level of Dante's Inferno-
even NARAL, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer approved The Infant Protection Act, saying it was NOT a threat to Roe v Wade.
BUT NOT BARACK OBAMA!


"On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:21 PM

Hey Johnny MCS- I'm for Independence from Foreign Oil AND Against Global Warming- So, I CAN'T vote Democratic this year, because your candidate panders to his Illinois Farmers! (So, I don't know what you're talking about)


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM

Ken,

Of course you can, because like all the other Republicans who are bankrupted of their own ideas, you feel no compunction about stealing from other.

Thanks you for proving my point: Republicans have no moral compass and have indeed lost their collective bearings.

Go ahead, copy away. The only thing it does it make you look as foolish as you seem to be.

Vote republican and declare moral bankruptcy.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 4:13 PM

Posted by: Ayne | September 12, 2008 2:36 PM

Two days ago, while watching the comments of the Congressional Budgeting Committee made by two Republicans, Paul Ryan, and Judd Gregg, they blamed the cost of additional money appropriated for the GI Bills to the Democrats as being I guess excessive or un-necessary. They also said the Democrats were to blame for the excessive supplements for 2008, much of which was requested by our good President, as Washington still can't budget the Iraq war, because they have no idea what they need to do, even today, or what it will cost. They have to return to the Congress, for I guess you could say bail outs. GOD forbid if the Democrats would say no. I guess you would attack them for that too. See for yourself: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/includes/templates/library/flash_popup.php?pID=280994-1&clipStart=&clipStop=

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:11 PM

Our entire country is divided and blinded between the social issues. The Republican agenda for the past twenty years has been tied to family values, christianity, pro-life, Anti Gay and sometimes they get away from social issues to discuss being fiscally conservative. The Democrats are then branded as dead beat, atheist, Homosexual baby killers who tax and spend. Why not stop for a minute and take the time to go through the issues one by one and see how the actions of our political leaders effect us in the real world? Republicans would be wise to see what really constitutes wealth. Read a little more into how much money you need to make before the democrats will increase your tax rate. This isn't communism or socialism just because we are trying to have a distribution of wealth. If you want to live in a country where a fraction of 1% controls 99% of the wealth, keep voting for Republicans we are getting closer to this reality everyday.

http://bowman.typepad.com/cubowman/2006/05/distribution_of.html

Posted by: Johnny MindCloudSeed | September 12, 2008 4:00 PM

I can do this all day long

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM

Whenever the Democrats, or their trolls, get into a position from which there is no escape (as in they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, pants down, whatever), they respond in one way: insult McCain. Not on sound policy differences or issues, but on personality or other ambiguous nonsense.

Now we have the old man bit back again--the last defense of the defenseless shill. Can't get the man on substance, so make fun of him, belittle him, do anything you can to tap dance around the fact that your candidate is out of touch, can't tell truth from fiction even when told repeatedly, and is now hiding behind a beltway lifer.

Way to go.

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 3:50 PM

Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol require i unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:33 PM

"we continue to give corporations tax breaks instead of the people who actually need them. "

FYI the US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate of 35% in the world behind Japan. I know a lot of people don't realize this since it doesn't meet the liberal and MSM agenda but it is a simple fact I figured I'd share.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 3:32 PM

Issues-

Two Embarrasingly indefensible Obama Issues-
1. Corn Ethanol
-leads to global warming using one unit of petroleum for every unit replaced
-raises food prices
-7x less efficient than sugar cane ethanol (which McCain favors)
(BUT great for Illinois farmers!)
2. Infant Protection Act
-Opposes medical attention for infants who survive LEGAL abortions, not making them illegal
-Obama lied about wording of the Illinois law, later admitting that it was the same wording as in the federal bill
**********
Obama- shows no shame in pandering to farmers and more radical than abortion advocates.
Comments Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL
HumanEvents.com
12/26/2006
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who s urvived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
In the second hearing, Stanek said,20“I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”
“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.
At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM

I run on no real issues, I have not accomplished anything in the state senate or the US senate. I did make a great speech back in 2002. People love me becuase I am a great speaker.. and Oprah loves me so I am golden.

So, vote for me.... change... who knows what that means anyway.. hey, I'm not a hot broad or an old fart.... I'm black so you can't attack me.. that's racist.. but at least I'm not a white beauty pageant idiot and an old fart who can't use a computer.

Thanks!

Obama

Posted by: Obamanator | September 12, 2008 3:25 PM

Prepare yourself for the greatest ideological match-up of the century!

No, it's not Obama versus McCain, it's McCain versus Palin.


LET'S GET READY TO RUUUMMMBBBLLLE...!


This was John McCain, late last year on why he was qualified to be the president:

"I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3&fta=y&oref=slogin
.


And here is Sarah Palin last night on why she is ready to be a 72-year old heartbeat away from the presidency:

"Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state."

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5782924
.


So there you have it. The ultimate he said, she said. John McCain explained why Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and Sarah Palin explained why John McCain doesn't represent change, just more of the same old politics as usual.


AMERICA, IF YOU'RE DUMB ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR THESE TWO KNOW NOTHINGS (MCCAIN/PALIN) THEN YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET - FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH/CHENEY LIKE INCOMPETENCE AND THUGGERY!

Posted by: DrainYou | September 12, 2008 3:18 PM

Dear graytok

I was merely trying to make a point which is Obama spends his time trying to tear down his opponents. He is opening himself up for a backlash. We are all tired of it. He can't attack constantly with the "lip stick and old fish" and now illiterate old man" references and then say " hey.. all they do is attack me and never talk about the issues"

It is just trying to push blame on someone else and point the finger. It is juvenile at best.

Posted by: TomB | September 12, 2008 3:18 PM

Well at least I am safe from McCain reading this blog. To believe there are still dinosaurs out there that do not have E-Mail accounts. My GrandFather who is 84 reads posts I send him

Posted by: Robert Johnson | September 12, 2008 3:16 PM


graytok and Deb- More words you can't believe in from the Vice Plagiarist candidate-

Saturday, September 06, 2008
Delaware Newspaper Calls Out Biden For Drunk Driving Lie

TV's Inside Edition ran a story last week replaying Sen. Joe Biden's claim that Curtis Dunn, the truck driver who struck the car driven by his first wife in 1972 and which killed her and his daughter, was drunk at the time of the accident, bringing tears to the surviving daughter of the innocent truck driver. The Wilmington News Journal writes about Joe Biden's false claim that a drunk driver killed his wife and daughter:


Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction.

Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."

The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing.

"To see it coming from [Biden's] mouth, I just burst into tears," Dunn's daughter, Glasgow resident Pamela Hamill, 44, said Wednesday. "My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself."

Biden spokesman David Wade said Wednesday that the senator "fully accepts the Dunn family's word that these rumors were false."


What is particularly outrageous about Biden resurrecting the false claim during his recent 2008 presidential bid is the fact that he wrote a letter of apology to the truck driver's daughter, Pamela Hamill, after she sent a letter to him about the same false claim he made when addressing a college audience shortly after September 11, 2001. The News Journal writes:


After reading a News Journal account of Biden's 2001 speech at UD, Hamill sent Biden a letter on behalf of her father. The newspaper story included Biden's description of getting the call that his wife and daughter had died, but not his comments about Dunn.

Hamill said her note to the senator described how Dunn was affected by the accident.

Printed on the senator's letter head and dated Oct. 11, 2001, the response from Biden reads:

"I apologize for taking so long to acknowledge your thoughtful and heartfelt note," Biden wrote. "All that I can say is I am sorry for all of us and please know that neither I nor my sons feel any animosity whatsoever."


Hamill immediately contacted Biden's office again after Inside Edition ran Biden's claim that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver. The News Journal reports:


Hamill said it wasn't until the Inside Edition report that she became aware that the Delaware senator had said alcohol played a role in the accident. Dunn did not consume any alcohol the day of the crash, Hamill said.

She said she immediately called Biden's office after being contacted by Inside Edition and is waiting for the senator's response.

"The family feels these statements are both hurtful and untrue and we didn't know where they originated from," Hamill said.

As Hamill watched a recording of the Inside Edition report Wednesday, she gasped when the clip of Biden's comments from Iowa came on screen.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:13 PM

Whenever the Republicas, or their trolls, get into a position from which there is no escape (as in they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, pants down, whatever), they respond in one way: insult Obama. Not on sound policy differences or issues, but on personality or other ambiguous nonsense.

Now we have the Messiah bit back again--the last defense of the defenseless shill. Can't get the man on substance, so make fun of him, belittle him, do anything you can to tap dance around the fact that your candidate is out of touch, can't tell truth from fiction even when told repeatedly, and is now hiding behind the skirts of a woman.

Way to go.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 3:11 PM

Gee, I guess we need to see if MCain will do a commercial showing "The Messiah" during the same period of time with a bong and snorting lines of cocaine.... or where was Barrack during the time he spent with William Ayers or Tony Rezko... Terrorists, Convicted Felon's and Heavy Illegal Drug Use. That's Obama.....If it feels good DO IT.. that should be his campaign slogan

VERY CLASSY...

Posted by: TomB | September 12, 2008 3:07 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:09 PM

The truth which the Republicans won't acknowledge:

"John McCain is telling lie after lie. Not off the cuff remarks that can be excused as accidents or flubs but the same lies consistently and many of them. Serial liars are never trustworthy people -- that is a truism. But it also demonstrates a deeper character flaw. A normal job applicant would be disregarded out of hand after such a record became clear."

--Josh Marshall

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 3:07 PM

Gee, I guess we need to see if MCain will do a commercial showing "The Messiah" during the same period of time with a bong and snorting lines of cocaine.... or where was Barrack during the time he spent with William Ayers or Tony Rezko... Terrorists, Convicted Felon's and Heavy Illegal Drug Use. That's Obama.....If it feels good DO IT.. that should be his campaign slogan

VERY CLASSY...

Posted by: TomB | September 12, 2008 3:07 PM

@Todd

Speaking of torture, by Bush's definition of torture, John McCain was never tortured in the Hanoi Hilton.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/was-mccain-tort.html


Mind boggling double standards. We call something torture when others do it to our citizens, but when we do it, its not torture.

End the insanity!

Obama 08

Posted by: Jason | September 12, 2008 3:06 PM

From The Wall Street Journal
Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge
By JIM DEMINT
September 10, 2008
"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008
In politics, words are cheap. What really counts are actions. Democrats and Republicans have talked about fiscal responsibility for years. In reality, both parties have a shameful record of wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars on pork-barrel projects.
My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.
Let's compare.
Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."
Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.
Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.
Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.
Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."
Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from pubic scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.
Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.
Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are.
Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:06 PM

This is a very simple decision. If you dont like the way the country is going, vote McCain.

I personally feel the country is heading in the wrong direction. Instead of protecting privacy we now have warrant-less wiretaps, we torture innocent people (what's that all about, when did we become the terrorists?) and throw them in jail for years before trial, we continue to give corporations tax breaks instead of the people who actually need them. I could go on and on about how this country is in shambles...And with Obama its going to be worse

Folks, its time to stop blindly following your liberal party and thinking about whats really at stake here.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:05 PM

This is a very simple decision. If you like the way the country is going, vote McCain.

I personally feel the country is heading in the wrong direction. Instead of protecting privacy we now have warrant-less wiretaps, we torture innocent people (what's that all about, when did we become the terrorists?) and throw them in jail for years before trial, we continue to give corporations tax breaks instead of the people who actually need them. I could go on and on about how this country is in shambles...

Folks, its time to stop blindly following your party and thinking about whats really at stake here.

Todd

Posted by: Todd | September 12, 2008 3:01 PM

And yet another lie, from today's 'The View'

It's become pathological. John McCain just claimed on TV that Sarah Palin has never requested an earmark for her state -- when actually her state gets more earmarks than any other state in the country. And this year she asked for $197 million worth of them herself.

Even the AP couldn't ignore his lying -- even though they phrased it in their own anemic way. "When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: "Not as governor she didn't."

For the record Palin requested $197 million this year and $256 million last year. Per capita, that's $288 this year and $376 last year.

To give you some perspective, Palin herself requested at least ten times the dollar value of earmarks as most states get total every year.

*********

BTW, the fact check organizations have gone out of their way to say they have NEVER seen anyone so abuse the truth as the McCain campaign.

Sure, both sides appropriate different views but to lie with impunity, even when the truth is repeatedly pointed out (bridge to nowhere, anyone?) shows disrespect to the voters and lack of integrity in the candidate.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 3:01 PM

Greytok- "dishonesty"?- Here you go

Real Clear Politics
September 11, 2008
Words Obama Will Regret
By Ken Blackwell

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, "they must think you're stupid." Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.

Let's start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he's ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was "yes." He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced -- this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 2:59 PM

Obama's chief adviser lobbies for oil companies, even from Russia and China. His campaign manager lobbies for corporations outsourcing American jobs. The campaign chairman he picked last year -- a bank lobbyist. If ten of Obama's top advisers are lobbyists, who do you think will run his White House?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:58 PM

John McCain on the being mayor / governor qualifying you for the ticket, October 2007:

"I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism," the Senator declared. "I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

And then, to win an election, he added an uneducated woman who had been a governor for two years (90 day legislative session) and mayor of a tiny town who had to use a city manager to conduct business because she was so bad she faced recall.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 2:58 PM

This is lie about McCain not knowing how to use computer.Back then he was using vista instead of xp and first time its alway complicated.I saw a segment where Obama couldnt spell a simple word just couple years ago

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 2:56 PM

Graytok, I spent a good deal of time the last two weeks going over FactCheck.org and Politifact.com. Neither side has a monopoly on the truth. I can't tell that either side stretches the truth more or less than the other.

That post was a parody of a previous poster. I simply changed Republican to Democrat and McCain to Obama and re-posted it.

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 2:54 PM

John McCain's chief adviser lobbies for oil companies, even from Russia and China. His campaign manager lobbies for corporations outsourcing American jobs. The campaign chairman he picked last year -- a bank lobbyist. If seven of McCain's top advisers are lobbyists, who do you think will run his White House?

*****

I want to know exactly what racist and sexist comments left Barack Obama's lips that all you folks seem to constantly refer to in your comments. I want substance here, not just allegations, not a slip of the tongue mistake that all of us make but a deliberate campaign focus on sexism and racism.

I'll wait.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 2:53 PM

More responses to John McCain's lies and smears:

Planned Parenthood defends Barack Obama's record on sex education after a nasty John McCain ad suggesting the Democrat supports teaching kindergartners about sex. In an ad, they say that Obama was helping children protect themselves from sex offenders, while McCain seemingly doesn't care.

"Every eight minutes a child is sexually abused," the narrator says. "That's why Barack Obama supported legislation to teach children how to protect themselves. Now John McCain is twisting the facts and attacking Senator Obama. Doesn't McCain want our children to protect ourselves from sex offenders? Or after 26 years in Washington, is he just another politician who will say anything to get elected?"

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 2:50 PM

McCain is a child molester. Here's the proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbq9LCOCqE&feature=user

Posted by: Jerry | September 12, 2008 2:50 PM

From John McCain's lips:

It's easy for me to go to Washington," said the Senator, "and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have."

**********

We know. That's why people who care about the future of the country should never vote for John S McCain and Sarah Palin.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 2:48 PM

Scott-

Why don't you worry about why Sarah Palin had tax payers reimburse her family for per diem charges when they weren't even traveling? Sarah Palin is a theif!

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 2:48 PM

"I can tell you how many: just count the registered Republicans who would rather embrace a lying candidate that elect one who has tried -- if not always successsfully -- to run an above board campaign."

Yeah the race card, sexism, and other strategies have been really above board. Critical thinkers can see this just because Obama says he is running a clean campaign doesn't mean he is.

I guess to apply this logic you must think that getting all of your competition thrown off of the ballot is above board also.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM

Being 72 years old I can relate to John McCain not knowing how to send an e-mail or use the internet. I just recently learned to do this myself and I don't think it is a qualifier for the office of the president. That being said, as a Veteran and lifelong Republican I am more concerned with getting our kids out of Iraq and on how bad the economy is and how both President Bush and now Mr. McCain seem to have no idea of how to change this. Mr. Obama has a clear plan which involves utilizing our technological strengths to fuel the economy as opposed to continuing to push an ancient agenda that depends on war, industry and consumerism to fuel our economy. In additon racists idiots like the coward who posted his name as Adolf the Lamobama continue to give our party a bad name with their ignorance. We can only hope that if the liberals continue to support abortions God will selectively eliminate only the poor children who turn out as clueless and ignorant as Adolf.

Posted by: Tom Harper | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM

Once upon a time, being loyal to a political party meant really not too much more than what jokes you were able to tell among your friends and whether or not you might get away with paying less in taxes.

Those days are long gone.

Now is the time to stop and pay attention and this election matters on a plane far beyond those superficial notions. If the only question you can muster is "will my bank account be any better off with a McCain presidency?" - the answer to that is yes ONLY if you make more than $250k a year. Anything less than that and your income will go down.

And if you do make more than $250k a year, I implore you to volunteer a fraction of your time and/or money in poverty-stricken areas of the US. Those areas have grown at a staggering clip in the last 8 years.

Talk to people who have lost their jobs and their health insurance. Talk to people from other countries and ask them what they think of the US. Read history and ask yourself if we have learned anything from our own.

If you must vote for McCain, own it, and back it up with solid information, not soundbites.

Don't be a Republican without owning up to exactly what it means to be a Republican in this election. Know exactly what you are voting for and why. Do it with your eyes wide open, and armed with information that is gleaned from sources outside of talk radio or Fox News that tell you what you want to hear. Don't bury your head in the sand, witness first-hand what the last 8 years have done to a majority of the population - and then vote for McCain; and know that while McCain says "change" in his speeches, that is simply not reflected in his policies.

PLEASE put your party loyalty aside and be a human being on this planet. You might be surprised to learn caring about other people, and the feeling you get by helping them, can actually provide you with more value than what is in your bank account.

Posted by: People first | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM

Mike - you are the problem with this country. You should read what you wrote. I want you to realize that you sound uneducated and that you perpetuate the stereotype that people in other countries have of Americans. Please do the rest of us Americans a favor and keep your ignorant, unfounded opinions to yourself or at the very minimum; read a book or go back and finish the 5th grade.

Posted by: Shocked and Appalled | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM

Hey Deb- Has anyone in the Obama campaign ever answered this scandalous transaction to your satisfaction? If Obama bought his house at 300k below market (personal funds), how does he compensate when caught by donating 200k in CAMPAIGN funds to charity?????????????????


The TimesFebruary 26, 2008

Mansion 'mistake' piles the pressure on Barack Obama
(Charles Rex Arbogast/Pool/EPA)
Barack Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a mistake

James Bone in New York and Dominic Kennedy in London
Graphic: the house that Barack bought | Barack and the billionaire

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.


Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.

Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.

It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.

In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations."

Mrs Rezko, whose husband goes on trial on unrelated corruption charges in Chicago on March 3, refused to answer questions about the case when she spoke by telephone to The Times

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 2:46 PM

From NYT:

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

************

Heck of a job, Republicans. If you can't win the election fairly, lie your way into the WH. Of course, this would only be an issue if you had any integrity or ethics, and it is becoming clearer each day that you have none...

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 2:45 PM

If democrats were republicans, they'd run this ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbq9LCOCqE&feature=user

Posted by: Jerry | September 12, 2008 2:43 PM

Linda,
Your parents aren't running for president. Considering this, shouldn't McCain at least be modern enough to use a computer if your parents are? He is running for president after all.

Posted by: Ayne | September 12, 2008 2:42 PM

From AP, on the character of John McCain:

WASHINGTON — The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.

Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. Campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.

*****

I can tell you how many: just count the registered Republicans who would rather embrace a lying candidate that elect one who has tried -- if not always successsfully -- to run an above board campaign.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 2:41 PM

"Since the white hat & cross burning days have waned they seem to have little to do anymore other than make false accusations,I feel sorry for this country that has to tolerate the internet lynch mob & bigots that would bring back lynching in a bat of an eye while waving the flag & invoking gods name."

Just remember that the republican party was the party of Lincoln and the democratic party was formed to try to keep white supremacy in place. Democrats act like they try to help minorities but in reality they seem to think that minorities are incapable of succeeding when given a level playing field. I guess some things never change.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 2:40 PM

Ken said:
'Good grief, but the paid Democrat shills are out in number today!'

And I was just think the same thing about both parties....

Posted by: Ayne | September 12, 2008 2:38 PM

Jill Jill Jill... After I read your post I'm reminded of that lovely song, "If I only had a brain!"

So you like what Bush has done to this country and want four more years of that? I take it you think he's doing a bang-up job with the economy and the war on Iraq too?

Wow Jill, are you that naive?

You need to give your head a shake my friend.

Jason

Posted by: Jason | September 12, 2008 2:37 PM

There is nothing wrong with someone not wanting to learn how to use a computer. However, that reflects a persons vision for the future. This is the information age, and if used correctly, can save time, money, and more. Leaving that responsiblity to someone else, such as an aide, may show management delegation, but when that is coupled with mis-interpretation, you can have a mess like the Iraq war! This is an old man, set in his ways, and new life is what this day, age, and country needs. This is not an attack on John McCain, this is reality. China does not wear brown anymore, we had better get our act together with every possible tool, and embrase it's use!

Posted by: David B. Workman Sr. | September 12, 2008 2:37 PM

I resent people equating this with OLD. My parents are older than McCain and both are computer literate. My dad has his own web site.

Posted by: Linda | September 12, 2008 2:37 PM

Nice try, Ken, but you are simply doing the Republican dance of lies bit. Check all the Fact Check organizations out there and compare the lies of the McCain organization to those from the Obama campaign.

But you won't because that would take effort and you would rather simply attempt humor where there should be none and spread fear where there should be none.

Posted by: graytok | September 12, 2008 2:37 PM

Anonymous:
What Anonymous doesn't realize is that Obama has voted AGAINST every bill that would benefit veterans including the New G.I. Bill. The military supports McCain over Obama 6-1.

Sources please. I seem to be reading entirely different literature

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N.htm

I am certainly fallible, did I misinterpret the roll call vote? Also, to be fair, the second link is fairly antiquated. But, I would love to see what you have.

Posted by: Ayne | September 12, 2008 2:36 PM

McCain and Palin want to punish victims of rape.

Don't believe me? Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nmk6BSUwEA

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 2:36 PM

Jgross, are YOU really accusing others of illiteracy? You've got to be joking.

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 2:35 PM

Posted by: jill | September 12, 2008 2:33 PM

Good grief, but the paid Democrat shills are out in number today! I am so tired of reading the same old talking points that they copy and paste from site to site, the same old lies, the same old smear tactics, the same racial or religion undertones that --ooooohhhhhh --- warn us against the boogey man.

Let's try to have an adult conversation without the lies, the smears, the misrepresentations from the paid (and unpaid) trolls.

Barack Hussein Obama's campaign has been disgusting, whether or not you like his politics. He has--and this has been proven again and again--simply lied.

And if he lies to the American people during the campaign, why on earth should anyone believe him if he becomes president?

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 2:33 PM

Why do so many of the McCain support responses try to insult Obama because of his name and then somehow tie him to being some Muslim extremist supporter? How can someone be that much out of touch to actually manifest these delusions. This is very simple people, look at the current condition our country is in, look at how this administration has lied to get us into a war which benefited nobody, except those given the big contracts to support the mission. The economy is in shambles, the entire world things we're warmonger cowboys and our government continues down a road of fiscal irresponsibility by giving corporations tax breaks, not raising taxes and continuing to spend. Stop for a second and think about what that will cause. This is debt we're just passing to the next generation. How much more of this country do you want to sell to China?

Are you people completely stupid or are you just greedy rich people who refuse to pay more taxes? I'm thinking the latter...

Jason

Posted by: Jason | September 12, 2008 2:32 PM

Pallin looks like, walk like and act like DAN QUAIL, the other school age Vice President, right wing conservatives have picked up at the last minute and won the election. Quail had proved that he was not fit for the post accept a rubber-stamp to Bush, Sr. After the 4-years, he has been vanished in the jungle where he was belonged. Pallin is excatly like that with one more worry that Bush was not 72 years old, Bush had no life threatening cancer, Bush did not lose his half brain in the war, Bush was able to lift his both hands up to his head. If McCain may die and probably may, in few months or year, PALLIN WILL BE THE PRESIDENT AND THE WORLD WILL BE IN MOM'S LAPS, BUT MOM'S LAP IS FULL WITH BABIES, GOD KNOWS HOW MANY MORE ON THE ROAD AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE USA????? Vote wisely, Vote correctly and Vote for only Obama to make our future Safe and Sound too.

Posted by: john baguta | September 12, 2008 2:31 PM

OBAMA BROKE THE LAW WHEN HE BOUGHT THAT HOUSE IN CHICAGO TOGEHTER WITH CRIMINAL REZCO.NO NEED TO COVER THIS...BY BY BY OBAMA

Posted by: thunderstruck | September 12, 2008 2:30 PM

Anyone who still believes in all of this Obama equals Islamic facist bull crap is nothing more than an under educated racists. Trying thinking outside the box, do a little research of your own and make your own decision. Quite believing all of these stupid emails you get from some unemployed, low life redneck from the South who has nothing better in his/her free time than to slander someone who is far more educated.

Posted by: Brooke | September 12, 2008 2:29 PM

Americans are retarded morons, I hope you do vote in McCain, you deserve that after voting in Bush for two terms. They are the same, same values, same beliefs, same lies. He is an old decrepid war looser who was captured because he sucked at his job. He cannot even lift his arms up for God sakes. You are collapsing inwards onto yourselves and the rest of the world is laughing. Uneducated fools. Vote Obama, he is more american than most of you.

Posted by: jackaranda | September 12, 2008 2:28 PM

It's crystal clear Obama supporters are "racist” and “selective sexist”. They did not like Hillary either . It is crystal clear that Obama supporters are as stupid as he is. REMEMBER – these people voted for nothing and look where America is now. And now they are ready to send this great nation into Third-World country status by voting for Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM

Obama flip flops on everything he possibly can. He is fishing for votes any way he can at this point...


http://www.FastArizona.com

Posted by: ... | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM

Deb- Here are a couple of more lies for you- You do know Deb how to tell when a lawyer is lying to you?


September 11, 2008
Words Obama Will Regret
By Ken Blackwell

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, "they must think you're stupid." Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.
Let's start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he's ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.
When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was "yes." He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced -- this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.
However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 2:25 PM

do you realize stupid you guys near the top sound
ties to terrorist leaders?
thats simply a dumb misconception
breaking the law with "CRIMINAL" rezko?
are you stupid
they were good friends and obama couldnt fully afford a house
rezko picked up the rest of what obama couldnt cover
they never broke, though rezko did obama did not retard
calling mccain names?
how dare you
thats all the republicans do
they have no class
your all so stupid to say things like that

Posted by: colin | September 12, 2008 2:24 PM

Mac deserves respect for fighting in a war that the bushie hid from. But that does not qualify him to be president. He knows nothing about economics and the US is now is economic decline. (yeah it may be hard to accept that we are not quite as powerful as we use to be) Having a president who falls asleep during cabinet meetings (hey, that sounds like ol boom-boom Raygun) would be a repeat disaster of the 1908's and the start of the US economic decline. Get to the issues, MORONS, get to the issues. We have a $10 trillion debt created by criminal government spending, a $12 billion per month war that has no end in sight, a dollar that is collapsing, job losses, the highest inflation since Boom-Boom-Raygun was president, housing crisis, fanniefreddie woes (another %5 trillion added to the debt) the FED creating inflation, food prices spiralling out of reach (you'll soon see starving people here in the once-greatest-nation-on-earth), fuel prices manipulated to the stratosphere and on and on. The R's have no clue how to solve these problems--or else they would have solved them in the last 8 years. Hey no wait, they created these problems in the last 8 years.

Posted by: yard80197 | September 12, 2008 2:24 PM

Most derogatory comments about MR Obama are from illiterates who cannot spell or have a poor grasp of English language.How can you possibly even read the comments of these insulting inbreds & take them seriously,it is a sad day for America indeed with the ilk of these kind of people that have also found the man guilty of treason,hersy & all things foul.Since the white hat & cross burning days have waned they seem to have little to do anymore other than make false accusations,I feel sorry for this country that has to tolerate the internet lynch mob & bigots that would bring back lynching in a bat of an eye while waving the flag & invoking gods name.

Posted by: jgross | September 12, 2008 2:24 PM

What Anonymous doesn't realize is that Obama has voted AGAINST every bill that would benefit veterans including the New G.I. Bill. The military supports McCain over Obama 6-1.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:23 PM

Good grief, but the paid democrats shills are out in number today! I am so tired of reading the same old talking points that they copy and paste from site to site, the same old lies, the same old smear tactics, the same racial or religion undertones that --ooooohhhhhh --- warn us against the boogey man.

Let's try to have an adult conversation without the lies, the smears, the misrepresentations from the paid (and unpaid) trolls.

Obama's campaign has been disgusting, whether or not you like his politics. He has--and this has been proven again and again--simply lied.

And if he lies to the American people during the campaign, why on earth should anyone believe him when he becomes president?

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 2:22 PM

What Anonymous doesn't realize is that McCain has voted AGAINST every bill that would benefit veterans including the New G.I. Bill. The military supports Obama over McCain 6-1.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:22 PM

Man you can feel the angst and desperation of conservatives right now. Did you catch that trembling lip on Palin last night on ABC? When Charlie asked her about the "Bush Docterine" this gal looked like a deer in headlights sending vapid wordy answers - truly lost in a sea of words. This is the technique they will use now - verbal diarrhea of the worst kind.

Palin looked like a fool on national TV, I can hardly wait until other reporters get a crack... and I can't wait until Biden shows the world her "Northern Exposure".

Posted by: darr | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM

Both parties' ads are misleading. I'm sick of this crap.

Posted by: c | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM

Democrats= Socialist Pigs with and without lipstick! They want to government to pay for EVERYYHING!

Posted by: deb | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM

It's crystal clear McCain supporters are "racist” and “selective sexist”. They did not like Hillary either, but now, Ms. Piggy is ok. It is crystal clear that McCain supporters are as archaic as he is. REMEMBER – these people voted for Bush/Chaney and look where America is now. And now they are ready to send this great nation into Third-World country status by voting for McCain.

Posted by: mzbond | September 12, 2008 2:20 PM

Sarah Palin ABC interview is exactly what America needed to see that see too inexperienced to be compared to Hillary. Sarah Palin just like her boss McCain is out of touch and does not know anything about foreign policy. The interview also brought out the similarities between McCain-Palin and bush administration that they are quick to go to war even with a country like Russia. Are these the kind of leaders we need? I now understand why democratics are using the expression "a lipsticked pig".

Posted by: qoolkat2002 | September 12, 2008 2:20 PM

Obama has been running a dishonorable campaign. The problem is not that Obama is lil kid, it is that he lacks the curiosity to understand the issues that concern ordinary Americans.

He does not even use his brain, how will he understand the opportunities and challenges in the information age.

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Sally

I assure you. VP Palin is way more in touch then you are, SWEETIE!!!!!

Your candidate has dried up and you know it. He's said and done all he has. The primary spent his game plan. Then he's to stupid to choose Hillary. If he goes to Hillary now she'll turn him down for sure. That would be another stupid move on his part. But, he's already proven he's capable of stupid.

Posted by: chance | September 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Check out this video. McCain slams Palin for pork barrel spending and doesn't even realize it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmRkTJRfwqA

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Good grief, but the paid republican shills are out in number today! I am so tired of reading the same old talking points that they copy and paste from site to site, the same old lies, the same old smear tactics, the same racial or religion undertones that --ooooohhhhhh --- warn us against the boogey man.

Let's try to have an adult conversation without the lies, the smears, the misrepresentations from the paid (and unpaid) trolls.

John McCain's campaign has been disgusting, whether or not you like his politics. He has--and this has been proven again and again--simply lied.

And if he lies to the American people during the campaign, why on earth should anyone believe him when he becomes president?

Posted by: Deb | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM

The only thing we are agitated over is that the Democratic Party voted in a nobody senator, that is all me, me, me.

Posted by: jon | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM

I have three words for you: Yes. We. Can.

Posted by: Alan | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM

Isn't is funny how the dems get agitated when you confront them with the truth?

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM

John McCain has been running a dishonorable campaign. The problem is not that McCain is old, it is that he lacks the curiosity to understand the issues that concern ordinary Americans.

He does not even use e-mail, how will he understand the opportunities and challenges in the information age.

Posted by: Ni | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM

Glad to see CNN showing Mccain using the same lipstick on the pig ad again and again which Mccain used against Hillary. Mccain is so hypocrit he probably even forgot he used this phrase against directly against Hillary. Atleast Obama used it in context with Bushes failed policies.

Obama08

Posted by: tony | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM

I'm so sick of this country. Look at these comments. I think I read a dozen of them and all of them do nothing but throw bigoted hate at the other party.

I really wonder what would drive this country if it wasn't for hate. What could we possibly do to get ourselves out of bed in the morning?!?

Too bad I don't live somewhere else. I don't love this place and I can't afford to leave it.

Posted by: Brian in Manhattan | September 12, 2008 2:16 PM

Isn't is funny how the republicans get agitated when you confront them with the truth?

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 2:15 PM

Obama doesnt stand a chance. I cant wait for the debates. Obama will look like a fool.

http://www.FastArizona.com

Posted by: McCain | September 12, 2008 2:15 PM

If this is Obama's tough new face, we might as well cut directly to the McCain swearing in.. Obama f****d himself so hard by not selecting Clinton, and he's gonna learn a hard lesson come November. A perfect example of "book smart, world dumb".

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 2:15 PM

mr. Obama tell us when you going to be indictment for taking briberies from Chicago politicians?

Posted by: thunderstruck | September 12, 2008 2:14 PM


More double standards from the libs.

Yawn.

Posted by: reason | September 12, 2008 2:14 PM

I wonder what statistics say about scumbag lawyers really running things in washington republicats and democans all the same.

Posted by: rob | September 12, 2008 2:13 PM

His campaign tactics are certain being directed by Carl Rove et al. All seems to be the past to the observant American.

But something of greater concern to all Americans is the Nazi like tactics of the Evangelical party, the party of the anti-christ.

VOTING MANIPULATION

State Republicans in Macomb Co, Michigan, though, have a plan to give the McCain campaign an edge: suppress the vote.

The chairman of the Republican Party in Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the GOP's effort to challenge voters on Election Day. "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses," party chairman James Carabelli told the local paper in a telephone interview earlier this week.

State election rules allow parties to assign "election challengers" to polls to monitor the election. These volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they "have a good reason to believe" that the person is not eligible to vote."

The Michigan Republicans' planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being "true residents."

The scheme would, of course, disproportionately affect African-American families in the area, who are more likely to vote Democratic, and more likely to be in foreclosure as a result of sub-prime loans.

This is just part of a "comprehensive voter-challenge campaign" Michigan Republicans are launching this year, which will coordinate with the regional McCain campaign to train volunteers in challenging those who wish to vote on Election Day.

Asked about the GOP's efforts, Carabelli said, "I would rather not tell you all the things we are doing."

THEY DID THIS TO SOLDIERS SERVING IN IRAQ IN 2004.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:12 PM

Yeah America, vote for the anti-american, arab-american and what the future is for our Country I once defended. Baraka Hussein Obama. Sounds like a real American President to me! Good GOD people help us all. WIth all the tied obama has with terrorist leaders, I'd vote for Ronald McDonald before I voted for this ass face.

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 2:10 PM

Mr.Obama tell us how you broke the law when you bought that house in Chicago together with the CRIMINAL Rezko?

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 2:09 PM

All of these comments about John McCain's age are disgusting. For all you PC liberals, insults about age should cause you to wince the same as an insult about gays or minorities. There is no difference. I read this morning where some brilliant leftie opined that statistically speaking, McCain would not survive for four years. Well, statistically speaking, Obama will be in prison and/or father 2 illegitimate children inside two years. Statistics are funny things.

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 2:09 PM

I mean you can be a communist but not a complete idiot.Sad part that Lamobama is the both

Posted by: Adolf the Lamobama | September 12, 2008 2:07 PM

the real sad american political machine.,
to just call Mccain names is just wrong
look both candidates are the same as everyone else in washington they are corruptable. obama is no different he is not the new messiah ALL politians should be treated like ambulance chasing lawyers
oh wait most of them are!! enough said.

Posted by: rob | September 12, 2008 2:05 PM

Mr. Obama,

Please tell the public what we already know, but haven't talked about at all--That McCain is HIDING behind Sarah Palin's Skirt. How do you tout yourself as a war hero at the convention that nominates you, and then hide behind your VP pick for cover? Scared of the reality? Running and ducking from the issues? Just like a kid, hiding behind his mother's skirt after hitting someone else.

Now Mr. McCain, are you going to deal with the issues or not? Or are you content with hiding behind a woman's skirt?

Posted by: ji_john | September 12, 2008 2:05 PM

Obama is the communist wich is mean that he is an idiot

Posted by: Adolf the Lamobama | September 12, 2008 2:04 PM

McCain:

"Listen, mayors have the toughest job, I think, in America. It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have."


Finally! Some frank and honest straight talk from the guy (McCain) who doesn't know how to use computers, owns eight homes, thinks "middle class" is anything under $5 million, thinks people suffering economically are whiners, and -- yes -- thinks that being the mayor of a town with 6,000 residents is somehow qualified to run the United States of America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxT0s_I5WtA
.

Posted by: ZappoDave | September 12, 2008 2:04 PM

Obama is sooooo done.By by Husein Lamobama

Posted by: Adolf the Obama | September 12, 2008 2:03 PM

John McCain, if he ever did have any honor, has completely adjusted himself comfortably into a DISHONORABLE MODE OF DECIET. I have completely lost any respect that I once as a registered Republican (one of the many decieved) had for him. This thing with Sarah Palin and the lack of the Press REALLY PINNING JOHN McCain and Sarah Palin down and holding them accountable for these..., there's no other PHRASE that describes it more accurately than a quote from the book by Al Franken, " LIES, and the LYING LIARS THAT TELL THEM."

The RNC IS RUNNING WITH THIS LIE LIKE BATS FLYING OUT OF HELL. They remain UNCHALLENGED BY THE PRESS CORP. Even in the Presidential FORUM LAST NIGHT IT WAS HARDLY TOUCHED. The press and the CORPORATE MEDIA continue to Laud the so-called honor of John McCain while his action are anything but HONORABLE. The RNC and senator john mccain and Governor Sarah palign are running a POISONOUS, HITLER/STALIN PRPAGANDA CAMPAIGN.

IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN THIS. Yet, McCain walks about as though he is divorced from his actions. Where is the fulfillment of our AMERICAN MEDIAS CIVIC DUTY to challenge things and politics which are UNAMERICAN and CORRUPT? The RNC and Mccain camp ARE ENGAGED IN OUTRIGHT HITLER LIKE PROPAGANDA. This is an ASSAULT ON OUR AMERICAN CONSCEINCE AND INTELLIGENCE.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF FACTS FROM FACTCHECK.ORG AND POLITIFACT.COM

The McCain camp has put out a Web ad painting Obama as “ready to smear.”

McCain ad, “Lipstick”

[Title: Sarah Palin on: Sarah Palin]

Palin: Do you know they say, the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

[Title: Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin]

Obama: But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

[Title: Katie Couric on: This election]

Couric: One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life.

[Title: Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes.]

Let’s start with what the ad gets right. It does seem to be true that Republican v.p. candidate Sarah Palin wears lipstick. And it’s true that she mentioned this particular cosmetic choice at the convention, when she joked that lipstick is the only difference between a hockey mom and pit bull, as the ad shows before it goes completely off the rails. If this were a CoverGirl commercial, we’d be all set.

But it’s not; it’s a political ad. And it goes on to imply that Obama made a personal dig at Palin, calling her a “pig,” and that commentators decried his sexism for derailing the campaign. This is bunk. Let’s look at what Obama actually said at a campaign rally in Virginia:

Obama, Sept. 9: John McCain says he’s about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush — except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in Washington. That’s not change. That’s just calling some, the same thing something different. You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Here’s what the McCain campaign heard, according to ABC News’ Jake Tapper:

Tapper, Sept. 10: Asked why she was so confident Obama was “comparing” Palin to a pig, [former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, on behalf of the McCain campaign,] said Palin was the only one of the four candidates on both parties’ tickets who wears lipstick.

“She is the only one of the four candidates for president or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick,” Swift said. “I mean it seemed to me a very gendered comment.”

But, Swift added, if “as part of his apology Senator Obama wants to say no he was calling Senator McCain — who is a true hero in our country a pig — then I suppose we could wait en masse for an apology to that as well.”

For starters, Swift is ignoring the fact that “putting lipstick on a pig” is a hoary old expression of the same caliber as “building a better mousetrap” or “letting the cat out of the bag.” We did a quick Nexis search on uses of the expression before Tuesday, and found 2,290 instances dating back to 1985 (which is as far back as most Nexis news goes). Its meaning is precisely what Obama was talking about in his speech: calling the same thing something different. Context for the phrase in the last two decades ranged from health care to taxes to fashion to business to, uh, pig racing. It has tumbled from the lips of sports commissioners, librarians and company spokesmen, but it’s particularly popular with politicians. (Congressional newspaper The Hill even featured the phrase in its “Congress Speak” column.) It’s been spotted as far away as New Zealand. It’s even the title of a book by former McCain press aide Torie Clarke.

As several people (including Tapper, Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, Ben Smith at Politico, the Obama campaign and some of our readers) have pointed out, John McCain employed the phrase in 2007, in talking about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Oh, and he also said it about Iraq war strategy – if it’s really a personal smear, it’s not clear who’s wearing the lipstick in that example. Obama has used the expression before, too (also in referring to Iraq strategy). But before either McCain or Obama speculated on porcine cosmetics, members of Congress from Rick Santorum to Ted Kennedy had been talking pig lips for years.

If the McCain campaign wants to get literal, ignoring the expression’s long political pedigree, they could go whole hog (as it were) and look at what Obama actually said. He is talking about John McCain’s policies, not about his running mate. “Barack Obama on Sarah Palin”? Not at all.

And “Katie Couric on this election”? Well, it depends on what your definition of “this” is. Couric was referring to the Hillary Clinton campaign, long before Palin was tapped for v.p. Hey, remember when McCain called Clinton’s health plan “lipstick on a pig”?

Posted under Presidential Election 2008, Sarah Palin

This post was written by Jess Henig on September 10, 2008

Don’t mess with us

We were displeased, to say the least, when the McCain campaign released a new TV ad today making it seem as though FactCheck.org was endorsing its claims that Obama is making stuff up about Palin. So we posted this article on our home page:

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding

September 10, 2008

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

Posted under FactCheck.org

This post was written by Brooks Jackson on September 10, 2008

If They Keep Saying It, It Must Be So

Today’s Washington Post has a story about the repetition of deceptive statements in the campaign, leading with McCain’s and Palin’s claim that Palin told Congress “Thanks, but no thanks” for the Bridge to Nowhere. It’s a standard line in their stump speeches, despite the fact that we and a slew of news organizations have explained that it’s extremely misleading, at best. One quote from a GOP strategist: “[T]he bigger truths are that [Palin]’s new, she’s popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent. As long as those are out there, these little facts don’t really matter.” Hmmm. (Full disclosure: The article credits FactCheck.org with puncturing a couple of claims about Palin, but that’s not why we recommend it. Also, for more on why repetition works, see our Special Report, “Cognitive Science and FactCheck.org, or Why We (Still) Do What We Do.”)

Posted under Barack Obama, E-mail Rumors, FactCheck.org, John McCain, Presidential Election 2008, Sarah Palin

Kindergarten Sex Ed? Hardly

By Angie Drobnic Holan

Published on Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 11:15 a.m.

SUMMARY: A McCain ad says Education Week trashed Obama's education plans and that Obama wants "comprehensive" sex ed for kindergartners. The Truth-O-Meter says Wrong.

John McCain released an ad this week making the accusation that Barack Obama supports sex education for five-year-olds.

Here's what the ad says:

"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."

Let's look first at the claim that Obama wants five-year-olds to learn about sex.

The origins of this claim go back to Obama's days as a state senator in the Illinois General Assembly.

In 2003, the Assembly considered a bill to expand sex education directives from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The legislation required the curriculum to be medically accurate and include information on the prevention of HIV and contraceptives. It also said abstinence must be taught and that students "shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations, such as respect for oneself and others."

Most pertinent to the kindergarten allegation, the legislation states that "course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate."

Carol Ronen, the now-retired state senator who sponsored the bill, said its main intent was to make sure that teenagers got information that was "medically accurate," a requirement that wasn't then part of the school code. A secondary effect was to expand age-appropriate sex education down to lower grades, to allow things like teaching school children to avoid sex predators, Ronen said.

"Barack never had anything to do with it," she said. "This is a lot of hoopla."

Obama voted for the legislation in committee on a party-line vote. He was not a sponsor nor a co-sponsor, and the legislation never made it to a full Senate vote. So calling it one of his accomplishments is wrong, since it never became law and it wasn't his bill anyway.

This isn't the first time Obama has faced the "sex ed for kindergartners" charge. When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent Alan Keyes used it. "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it," Obama said at a campaign event in 2004. "If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards."

Because the legislation doesn't say what the ad implies it said, and because it was not sponsored by Obama and didn't pass, calling it one of his "accomplishments" is absurd. We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

Now to the lesser accusation, that Education Week deplores Obama's record on education.

Education Week did write that Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education," but the phrase is plucked out of its original context. It's is from a long article written during the Democratic primary that reviewed Obama's positions on education, particularly in comparison with the other Democratic candidates.

Here's the full quote:

"In his eight years in the state Senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn’t made a significant mark on education policy. In Illinois, his biggest accomplishments were in reforming state ethics rules and capital punishment. He did promote early-childhood initiatives that advocates considered 'innovative and progressive,' said Betsy D. Mitchell, a lobbyist for the Illinois Association for the Education of Young Children. "His biggest accomplishment in the field was the creation of a state board to oversee the expansion of early-childhood education in the state, Ms. Mitchell said."

So Education Week did write the words "hasn't made a significant mark on education," but it was not as disparaging a remark as the ad makes it out to be.

The audio portion of the ad is misleading because Education Week did not say Obama was "elusive" or a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." People who only hear the audio portion of the ad will not know that those two phrases are attributed to other publications. And, more significantly, those last two quotes come from opinion columns not news stories, which isn't made clear in the audio or video.

The "elusive" description is from a July 7, 2008, Washington Post editorial that says both candidates have fuzzy education proposals.

"Mr. McCain has not been forthcoming with any detailed plan; he is said to be preparing one for the fall. Mr. Obama, as the New York Times' David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability," said the editorial.

The charge that Obama is a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly" comes from a Chicago Tribune opinion piece by Steve Chapman. That brief quote does accurately capture the substance of Chapman's piece, which criticizes Obama for not embracing school vouchers. We rated this statement Barely True.

Lipstick, pigs and pit bulls

By Angie Drobnic Holan

Published on Wednesday, September 10th, 2008 at 06:33 p.m.

SUMMARY: Not quite a week after Gov. Sarah Palin joked about hockey moms being like pit bulls with lipstick, the McCain and Obama campaigns spar sharply over the phrase, "it's like putting lipstick on a pig."

The story begins, like so many these days, with Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week. Having stirred the crowd to its feet more than once, Palin delivered a knock-out line when she deadpanned:

“I love those hockey moms. You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” The line drew cheerful applause and has echoed ever since, which seems to explain how Sen. Barack Obama found himself in the middle of an uproar when he uttered a time-worn phrase to denigrate Sen. John McCain’s proclaimed agenda for “change” in Washington.

After declaring that McCain will follow the policies of President Bush on economics, health care, taxes, education and foreign affairs Obama said, “That’s not change. That’s just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

Gasp! He just said lipstick! Did he just call Sarah Palin a pig??!!!

That’s the charge.

Later that day, the McCain campaign arranged a conference call for reporters with Jane Swift, the former governor of Massachusetts. She said that when you add up Obama’s comments and Palin’s comments, you get Obama calling Palin a pig. Swift said Obama should apologize.

“Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a ‘pig’ is not exactly what we want to see,” Swift said.

The issue has dominated the presidential campaign for two days, with the McCain campaign stirring a controversy by having local lawmakers call for Obama to apologize, and the Obama campaign responding with examples of how often he and others have used the phrase. The Obama campaign called McCain’s campaign tactics “lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign released a Web ad called “Lipstick.” It begins with a clip of Palin delivering her lipstick line, then text flashes on the screen saying “Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin.” A moment later, the ad plays a small portion of Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” remark, but not enough of his quotation to make clear what he was talking about. The ad concludes with a clip of CBS anchor Katie Couric soberly remarking on sexism on the campaign trail.

The ad has two big problems, as does the complaint of former Gov. Swift. First, in the full text of the remarks it’s clear that Obama isn’t talking about Sarah Palin. He’s talking about McCain’s argument that he represents change.

Second, “putting lipstick on a pig” is a popular put-down, especially among politicians. It generally means taking a bad or unattractive idea and trying to dress it up.

We weren’t able to pin down the origins of this folksy expression, but we found tons of instances of people using it. It’s so common, the political newspaper The Hill labeled the phrase “Congress Speak” back in June, and gave it an official definition: “an expression used to illustrate that something unattractive cannot be beautified or otherwise positively changed by any amount of makeup or other exterior alterations.”

Obama and McCain both have used the expression.

In September 2007, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson quoted Obama using the phrase to discuss Iraq policy:

“I think that both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment,” Obama said. “George Bush has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig.”

In Iowa on Oct. 11, 2007, McCain panned Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, calling it “eerily reminiscent” of the plan that failed during Bill Clinton’s administration, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” McCain said, “but it’s still a pig.”

On Feb. 1, 2007, McCain blasted a Senate resolution that would have criticized President Bush’s strategy in Iraq. Some had praised the resolution as a compromise measure, but McCain disagreed. “It gets down to whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don’t,” McCain said. “You can put lipstick on a pig, [but] it’s still a pig, in my view.”

It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude that he’s making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it’s hard to see how one could interpret Obama’s lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to McCain, either.

We think it’s very clear that Obama was saying McCain’s effort to call himself the “candidate of change” is like putting lipstick on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree with Obama’s point, but his remark wasn’t the smear that McCain’s people have tried to make it.

If anyone’s doing any smearing, it’s the McCain campaign and its outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.

These are the facts. Yet, the AMERICAN CORPORATE MEDIA LEAVE ANY LIES MCCAIN LAUNCHES UNCHALLENGED. The Free Ride for McCain continues as the CORPORATE MEDIA attempts yet again to STEAL AN ELECTION for the RNC by remaining TIGHTLIPPED AND ONESIDED. The corporate MEDIA CONTINUES TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT The WARMONGER and would be KING GEORGE BUSH THE 2ND, John McCain .

Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: need4trth | September 12, 2008 1:57 PM

McCain has no honor, he is a two bit lying thug just like Bush and Cheney are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
.


If the corporate media hadn't been carrying McCain's water for him for the last six months he'd already be out of this race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
.


McCain is a fraud just like Bush and Cheney are. If you want four more years of thuggery and incompetence then you should vote for him because that's what you'll get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg
.

Posted by: Bush + McCain = "W"orthless | September 12, 2008 1:51 PM

...and Palin would fit in better back in 1708 instead of 2008. She is centuries out of touch!

Posted by: Sally | September 12, 2008 1:36 PM

Howie, it is not that "McCain is out of sync with popular culture," but that McCain is out of sync with modern technology. That's a big difference.

It is as if he still thinks travel by stagewagon is new, that gaslights are just replacing tallow wax candles, that sperm whale oil and blubber are major commodities, and that one day in the distant future Americans might be so bold as to end slavery.

We cannot move into future with a President who is technologically challenged, or one who insists on refighting the Vietnam war (that he missed nearly 6 years of languishing in North Vietnamese prison cell) so the ending will turn out differently. Iraq is not Vietnam. Yesterday is not tomorrow. And McCain is too out of touch to be President.

Posted by: Jade7243 Hussein | September 12, 2008 1:35 PM

If Obama stated that the very first thing he would do as President was to appoint John McCain as Secretary of Defense, this election would be over, and a greater percentage of Americans would actually be happier than either outcome that is possible now. Think about it.

Posted by: don r | September 12, 2008 1:34 PM

AGE-ISM IS DANGEROUS STRATEGY (REMEMBER REAGAN?)

• So Barack Should Return to the 'Judgment' Argument: Bash McCain over His Palin Pick


I'm shy of 60, but that snarky line in the Obama ad about how many houses McCain has -- "He just can't remember ANYMORE" -- really hits me as below the belt.

There are stronger arguments to use than McCain's age, arguments that won't make aging boomers uncomfortable... like this one:

By dint of the Palin nomination, The McCain campaign has succeeded in captivating a personality-obsessed media that's easily distracted from things they don't understand (like THE ECONOMY, stupid!).

They have turned the election into a referendum on Barack Obama, a fact that is complicated by Obama's background, his associations, and his own lack of experience in the executive arena.

(The Palin pick, as has been noted, makes it more difficult for the McCain camp to attack Barack on the experience issue.)

But McCain left himself wide open to attack on the judgment issue when he passed over seasoned hands and chose to put Sarah Palin a potential heartbelt away from the presidency.

The American electorate has a sad history of voting against its own economic self-interest in presidential elections. That's why Obama's campaign MUST mount an assault on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-rip-mccain-his-reckless-palin-pick-get-political-w-vic-livingston

____________________________________________

TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER

"GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist

What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?

Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 1:33 PM

THIS ISN'T FUNNY, IT'S SCARY AS H#LL!

THIS WOMAN IS SO UNQUALIFIED AND CLUELESS THAT IT'S SCARY TO THINK WHAT HER AND GRAMPY WARMONGER MCCAIN WOULD DO IF THEY WERE TO HAPPEN TO GET ELECTED!


Last week, Palin said she didn't know what the Vice President does every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ
.


This week, she has no idea what the President has been doing for the last eight years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgMWhrCzbdk
.


I thought Gibson was remarkably poised for not laughing in her face.


"In what respect?" That's not even a valid delaying question. There's no other "respect" in which the question can be cast! Do you agree with the doctrine or not?


You can't parse that question. You can shade your answer, but you can't parse the question. Gibson was nearly struck dumb by how easily and quickly she revealed her total ignorance.


Last week she didn't know what the VP did all day. This week, she doesn't know what the President has been doing for eight years.


"In what respect, Charlie?"


I haven't seen a newscaster so dumbfounded by a question since "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 12, 2008 1:29 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company