The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Ad Watch

Obama: McCain Not Running an Honorable Campaign

By Howard Kurtz
The Ad: (John McCain:) I will not take the low road to the highest office in this land. (Narrator:) What's happened to John McCain? He's running the sleaziest ads ever. Truly vile. Dishonest smears that he repeats even after it's been exposed as a lie. The truth be damned. A disgraceful, dishonorable campaign. After voting with Bush 90 percent of the time, proposing the same disastrous economic policies. It seems deception is all he has left.

Analysis: This Barack Obama commercial relies almost entirely on harsh media criticism of John McCain's ads, and most of the citations are from liberal sources, such as Time columnist Joe Klein, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Washington Monthly blogger Steve Benen and the New Republic. This is a classic technique of using third-party citations to validate a candidate's argument. And while a casual viewer might get the impression that Time and The Post are running news stories calling McCain's ads sleazy and disgraceful, the columnists' last names are shown in small type.

Recent media accounts have said that McCain is using more frequent and serious falsehoods than the Illinois senator, but some fact-check efforts have found occasional distortions in Obama ads as well.

This is the second spot in less than a week in which Obama has gone aggressively negative against McCain. A previous ad said McCain is out of touch and can't even use a computer, despite the fact that his war wounds make it difficult for him to type for any length of time.

This commercial attempts to use the criticism of McCain's advertising to raise questions about his policy proposals and character. It is true that the Arizona senator has voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time and supports some of the same economic policies, such as extending the president's tax cuts. But McCain has differed on some Bush policies, such as supporting greater financial regulation.

Whether this kind of attack will move votes is open to question, since voters have grown accustomed to candidates accusing each other of making false claims.

Posted at 12:19 PM ET on Sep 15, 2008  | Category:  Ad Watch
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: McCain: Fundamentals of Economy are 'Strong' but 'Threatened' | Next: Palin Calls for Wall Street Accountability


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.



When is McCain going to run an ad about what he's going to do for the American people rather than saying 'Obama this, Obama that.'? I'm sick and tired of hearing everything negative about Obama. It's annoying. Tell me what you're doing to do for me and my children and my children's children, you sleazy, old fart.

Posted by: Katie | September 17, 2008 11:43 AM

I am very sorry for the post I made at 11:10 a.m. I was under the influence of very hard psychotropic drugs in addition to having just finished knocking back a fifth of Jack Daniels, and mainlining crank into my jugular vein.

That would explain the substance of my post.

Posted by: Manolete | September 16, 2008 1:18 PM

Hmmm. Sorry about the double post. After refreshing my post wasn't visible but I see it there again now.

Posted by: Cryos | September 16, 2008 11:46 AM

I'm not sure why this post got removed from this thread.

If the MSM was more balanced this article would be all over the headlines. It shows the true bipartisanship of the candidates by the numbers not the rhetoric.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

Posted by: Cryos | September 16, 2008 11:46 AM

McCain isn't running an honorable campaign? No, what Obams thinks is that McCain should just lose honorably so the great coronoation can occur. I'm glad that McCain is running an aggressive campaign. It's about time that Obama and his group got a taste of their own medicine. Obama is NOT the destiny of this country, and I hope that the American voters tell him so.

Posted by: Sam | September 16, 2008 11:32 AM

ALASKA LOVES SARAH for the great work she has done reforming government to work for the citizens, and AMERICA IS FALLING IN LOVE WITH SARAH for her genuine sincerity, honesty and brilliant mind.

It is time to recognize that women can do a great job, many times better than men and Sarah Palin's record shows she is exceptional.

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!
DEMOCRATS FOR McCain/Palin!

Posted by: Manolete | September 16, 2008 11:10 AM

If the media was more balanced and honorable stories like the following would be on the headlines on websites.

Here is an analysis by the Washington Times about bipartisanship of the candidates. Since bipartisanship is such a big issue this election this story should be splashed all over the media. However it favors McCain so of course I haven't seen it anywhere I just happened to get a link from a blog.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

Posted by: Cryos | September 16, 2008 11:04 AM

Quote: "A previous ad said McCain is out of touch and can't even use a computer, despite the fact that his war wounds make it difficult for him to type for any length of time."

C'mon, Stephen Hawking uses a computer. Don't feed us this drivel.

Posted by: gingles | September 16, 2008 9:15 AM

Quote: "A previous ad said McCain is out of touch and can't even use a computer, despite the fact that his war wounds make it difficult for him to type for any length of time."

C'mon, Stephen Hawking uses a computer. Don't feed us this drivel.

Posted by: gingles | September 16, 2008 9:14 AM

Quote: "A previous ad said McCain is out of touch and can't even use a computer, despite the fact that his war wounds make it difficult for him to type for any length of time."

C'mon, Stephen Hawking uses a computer. Don't feed us this drivel.

Posted by: gingles | September 16, 2008 9:14 AM

Imagine that you have just walked out of a shopping mall or a ballpark and there is a huge parking lot there in front of you. Now imagine that you are looking at the late model cars under seven years old in that parking lot. Who do you think owns these cars? the people in the mall or attending the ballgame? The answer is no or at least not most of them. Most of the people that drove these cars to the mall or the ballpark only hold a small equity stake in these cars and do not legally own them at all. So who owns these cars? Unless the cars are financed through a credit union the answer is for profit lending institutions. Well the next question is who owns for profit lending institutions? or at least owns stock in them? The answer is a small percentage of the stock of these companies is owned by retirement accounts like 401K's and IRA's but the vast majority of the stock in these companies is owned by the wealthiest one percent of the people in the United States and countries around the world. Most of who would easily identify with the Republican Party.

Today "Our" cars are being financed for five six or seven years allowing these financial institutions more interest money than ever. Most of these cars are "purchased" with little or no money down, making them almost impossible to ever pay off. In fact most people just go get another car after two or three years and tack their inequity on their new loan, thus making them a captive of the lending institution. This often goes on a few times until the person has a job loss or medical problem and can't keep up with their payments. You would think that is where this story ends, but unfortunately it is not. Now this poor broke soul has to have transportation so next they enter the world of predatory high interest lending. The so called "special finance" or "by here pay here dealers", that are often owned by the same people that owned the original for profit lending company that they "bought" their original car through. Now they are captured souls destined to pay high interest for everything that they ever try to buy on credit, and absolutely no opportunity to negotiate the price of any future cars they purchase. So much for the Republican cry of let the market set the price. At this point these people are no longer customers, but rather slaves to the owners of the auto dealers and predatory high interest lending institutions.

The sad thing is that our fathers and grand fathers could afford to pay between twenty five to fifty percent down for their cars and only financed them for two or three years at most. So who do you think is receiving all of this wealth? If you guessed wealthy Republicans you guessed right. Vote Democrat on November 4th. If you are racist don't do it for Sen. Barack Obama, do it for your self and for your children. After your life improves maybe you will reconsider your racist views and become a better person.

Posted by: RW | September 16, 2008 7:23 AM

What else did you expect? Afterall, it is John McLiar and Sarah Palyin, The Pig Queen of Pork Barrel Spending!

Posted by: Andrew | September 16, 2008 2:37 AM

Dale said:
"i urge you to compare the time in teh senate, in comparison to teh contributions involved. obamas time, compared to mccains time, mccain SHOULD be in the top 10, 5 even considering. however hes trailing significantly to obama."

You can interpret the figures however you want. No doubt Obama has been a 'popular' gentleman ever since he wrote his books, earned a state and US senate seat, and launched a bid for presidency. Maybe it's the whole shiny new appeal...
Again...People give money for a variety of reasons...it's not always nefarious

Posted by: Ayne | September 16, 2008 2:16 AM

When Palin said she will go to war with Russia on ABC, was anyone paying attention? A war with a nuclear power? On Russian turf, with no visible means of supply?
Doesnt that make her qualified for the insane asylum?
Did you people just go into a trance at the sheer horror of a war with Russia?
Did any of you see/hear that Medvedev, the Russian leader, responded to Tina Fey
Palin''s outburst and he didnt back down from her threats!!! Palin''s promise to go to war with Russia was noticed by the Russians, and although she doesnt realize it yet, even a one time interview with ABC is watched all over the world.
Too bad she wont actually let real reporters grill her on her intent on the war with Russia. The DRAFT looms. She is not qualified to be on television with the whole world watching. She is not a pit-bull. She is a person, without any sense at all. WAR against Russia?
PLEASE, REGISTER and VOTE, and end the Sarah Palin DELUSION.
No to Palin for president in 2012. No to Palin for VP now.

Posted by: bruce Becker | September 16, 2008 12:34 AM

bud, you need to be blaming charles gibson for that one.

not only is this the one policy that EVERY CANDIDATE AGREES ON. its something thats indisputable.

if georgia joins nato, and russia attacks georgia, america must attack russia. its a huge treaty, palin was simply illustrating the results of it.

Posted by: dale | September 16, 2008 1:01 AM

also, the subject is not obamas shady dealings, but his support of the situation leading to the housing crises we have. perhaps its not criminal to be vested in housing so deeply it at least suggests poor judgment.

should we expect this time of investing in our president? taking advantage of a highly inflated balloon of profit? it brings up questions as to his economic principles, whether he might breach ethical and furthermore social economic stability for a profit?

if nothing more it begs this question of me.

if obamas purpose in ignoring or denying lobbyists is to discourage business from interfering with government, what does this encourage and discourage?

Posted by: dale | September 16, 2008 12:48 AM

When Palin said she will go to war with Russia on ABC, was anyone paying attention? A war with a nuclear power? On Russian turf, with no visible means of supply?
Doesnt that make her qualified for the insane asylum?
Did you people just go into a trance at the sheer horror of a war with Russia?
Palin is delusional.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:46 AM

McCain's financial advisor Gramm is responsible for writing the no-rules rules the financial world operates in these days.
FYI, the Lehman brothers action was brought down by betting $1 to make 35. At those odds if the market goes down at all, you lose everything. That's what they mean by leverage. Using 40 million dollars you could control, say $1.2 billion dollars. The prospect of such winnings at the table brought a lot of players to the trough.
Some made out like bandits. Some are big losers today.
They bet the house, on houses always going up. Oh no. Everything that goes up comes down, some day, you know.
That's McCain's pals. They made the no-rules rules.
Bush, McCain, Gramm. They made this game up.
Put in a few million and soon you have real money.
Or nothing at all.
Write to your Congresspeople and suggest that your tax dollars should NOT be used to bail out AIG.

Bail out the little guys who dont have health care.
Make health care affordable.
Socialism for people this time. Enough socialism for McCain's pals. NO more billion dollar bailouts for the bankers. Lehman brothers ran through $680 BILLION.

Posted by: Bruce Becker | September 16, 2008 12:43 AM

Barack and Joe Biden will give a "$25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees," according to their website. They are smart, they have a plan. I like them and have confidence in them.
I don't have any confidence left in the republicans. They keep messing up. Also, I would rather not vote for a bunch of liars who deceived folks in 2004, in 2000, and many times in between 2000 and now. Got people to chant, "flip flop, flip flop," and look around you, everybody in their party is flip flopping.
Then they got everybody chanting, "WMD, WMD" and it turns out there weren't any. People get deployed and killed for a pack of lies. McCain just today saying the ecomony is great. Pretty in touch he is, yes? Ehr, the answer is no. And so he flip flopped and put out another ad out today saying, "No, I mean the economy is lousy." Flip, flop.
Just look around you. Sure, Sarah Palin is presentable, but she is just another marketing ploy. We can look at what is really going on.
The economy impacts everyone. Employment is lowest in 6 years, the big bull Merrill Lynch failing, Fannie and Freddie failing, Lehman Brothers failing, jobs going overseas. Tossed the dice and lost out. What, am I goint to give them another chance? They played me like a violin enough times. I'm not going to place any more bets on the Republicans.

Posted by: J. | September 16, 2008 12:41 AM

When Palin said she will go to war with Russia on ABC, was anyone paying attention? A war with a nuclear power? On Russian turf, with no visible means of supply?
Doesnt that make her qualified for the insane asylum?
Did you people just go into a trance at the sheer horror of a war with Russia?
Did any of you see/hear that Medvedev, the Russian leader, responded to Tina Fey Palin''s outburst and he didnt back down from her threats!!! Palin''s promise to go to war with Russia was noticed by the Russians, and although she doesnt realize it yet, even a one time interview with ABC is watched all over the world.
Too bad she wont actually let real reporters grill her on her intent on the war with Russia. The DRAFT looms. She is not qualified to be on television with the whole world watching. She is not a pit-bull. She is a person, without any sense at all. WAR against Russia?
PLEASE, REGISTER and VOTE, and end the Sarah Palin DELUSION.
No to Palin for president in 2012. No to Palin for VP now.

Posted by: bruce Becker | September 16, 2008 12:34 AM

Dale,
After locating the actual link that details the contributions (apologies I did not read your Patterico page). I couldn't help but notice McCain was right up there in the top 10 (7).I also noted the PACS.
Further, you are right,"unfortunately there's no way to prove WHY someone gave money". Then you defer to Clinton, and abandon the person of subject Obama.
Anyway, It appears that the same point you attempted to make of Obama, can be made of McCain as well. Especially considering McCain's previous experience with banking scandals.

Posted by: Ayne | September 16, 2008 12:21 AM

i urge you to compare the time in teh senate, in comparison to teh contributions involved. obamas time, compared to mccains time, mccain SHOULD be in the top 10, 5 even considering. however hes trailing significantly to obama.

Posted by: dale | September 16, 2008 12:33 AM

Dale,
After locating the actual link that details the contributions (apologies I did not read your Patterico page). I couldn't help but notice McCain was right up there in the top 10 (7).I also noted the PACS.
Further, you are right,"unfortunately there's no way to prove WHY someone gave money". Then you defer to Clinton, and abandon the person of subject Obama.
Anyway, It appears that the same point you attempted to make of Obama, can be made of McCain as well. Especially considering McCain's previous experience with banking scandals.

Posted by: Ayne | September 16, 2008 12:21 AM

James P. wrote
Republicans are criminals and should be locked up. They and they alone are responsible for this economy and even John Mccain admitted it telling a crowd of supporter that "The current administration is asleep at the switch". If that isn't a confession I don't know what is.

Aside from this being not in keeping with Obama's goal of reaching across party lines, it's just wrong on so many levels. If you had read the article on Sunday's WP fron page entitled "How Washington Failed to Rein In Fannie, Freddie," you would already know that the problems we are having now have their roots in at least as far back as the early 90's in spite of warnings, to their credit, from both Republicans and Democrats, that both Fannie and Freddie were much too weakly regulated to guard against exactly what has happened.


Posted by: Bob | September 15, 2008 10:16 PM

What does one say of this new version of McCain?? Well how about "Cain. A maniac!". Hang on!! That's a Palin-drome!!

Posted by: H. Ali Tosis | September 15, 2008 10:03 PM

I am not the same person as "very unhappy," who apparently thinks McCain's claiming Obama was being exist (I don't agree) equates to a man who voted present 130 times as an Illinois legislator calling a man who spent 6 years as a POW dishonorable.

Posted by: Bob | September 15, 2008 10:02 PM

"bush has a 30% approval rating, not even republicans like bush"

Wrong, my friend. Another piece of evidence of the widespread ignorance on this board from both sides of the political fence. Bush's approval rating amongst Republicans is nearly 70%. It's the democrats and the sizeable independents who make up nearly all the 70% who hate him.

Posted by: Fact Checker | September 15, 2008 9:00 PM

thats still an overal 30% approval rating, and proves that once again, as i said EVEN REPUBLICANS HATE HIM. i didnt say all of them did, i said that he is unliked even amongst republicans.

where in any way did you prove me wrong at all?

if this is what you call fact checking, no wonder courts of law dont use factcheck.org.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 9:40 PM

Analysis: Washington Post is not Factcheck.org, so quit trying to appear like it.

Factcheck.org is a non-partisan website that evaluates claims on both sides.

Here are the facts from an honest source:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

Without a doubt, McCain and Palin have been running a very sleazy campaign. They are spreading blatant lies about Obama's policies and they keep on doing it no matter how often they are debunked.

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 9:09 PM

false, factcheck.org is not a non-partisan sight, tho it claims to be, neither is snopes.

if either was they would post both teh source of the actual rumor/fact to debunk, as well as the proof of the facts analysis so that the average person could research it themselves. instead they simply focus on what they find the easiest to research.

they constantly have to change their facts and rumors sections because courts rule in favor of different things which snopes or factcheck claim are already "proven" one way or another.

no court of law allows for newspaper articles or factcheck or snopes as "evidence" in a trial. why? because they have an agenda like every person who does anything on the planet.

do the research yourself, find the rumors, find the facts that prove it either way.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 9:36 PM

why are you people even spending the time writing on a board that MAYBE gets 500 onlookers and perhaps 100 readers if that? Look at how few people bother to reply to anyone else's posting - most people are just talking to hear themselves talk..... and hardly anyone's listening to them.

I think everyone on these boards spending time to post (including me) are a bunch of wannabe politicians. Or maybe just losers. We could be taking this time to register voters or make presentations betfore hundreds with our viewpoints. But maybe our viewpoints are so poorly backed up or so UN-original that no one would come to hear us talk..... which brings me back to why people bother posting when so few people are going to read their postings.

Could it be that we've all got the luxury of time on our hands?????????

Posted by: another time waster | September 15, 2008 9:26 PM

Analysis: Washington Post is not Factcheck.org, so quit trying to appear like it.

Factcheck.org is a non-partisan website that evaluates claims on both sides.

Here are the facts from an honest source:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

Without a doubt, McCain and Palin have been running a very sleazy campaign. They are spreading blatant lies about Obama's policies and they keep on doing it no matter how often they are debunked.

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 9:09 PM

In rebuttal to questions regarding his capacities for effective leadership in such things as foreign policy, Obama frequently cites his own campaign experience as indicative of his strategic abilities, and of his potential to win friends and influence people. This is now problematic in light of the panic and consequent lack of strategic depth Obama has exhibited during the last several days in reaction to numerical data appearing under the words "Latest Polls."

Obama has ensured that voters have received a telling foretaste of what they can expect from Junior Senator Barack Obama in crisis; when he encounters situations in which things don't go as planned, when things don't go his way, when things are beyond his own control, when he encounters opposition unwilling to agree with his surrogates in various positions of influence. When he encounters perspectives different than his own.

We can watch and wonder: how will Barack Obama handle frustration in the realms of diplomacy and foreign relations?

For example, let us consider the REAL Issue with Obama's "Still" Advertisement.

In his consternation, in his fury, to launch an offense against the opposition, he made a dumb mistake. In doing so, he has once again reinforced public perceptions that HE, rather than his opponent, is "out-of-touch."

Obama does not appear to be "out-of-touch" because he happened to come of age before technology enabled many to substitute the virtual world for the engaging reality of the senses. Rather, Obama appears to be “out-of-touch” because he repeatedly testifies to a persistent, personal, lack of awareness, and a stubborn, self-absorbed unwillingness to make efforts to inform himself about the subtleties of reality beyond his own immediate environment of concern as it relates to himself.


The crucial issue with Obama's "Still" advertisement is not McCain's physical ability or disability to engage without assistance in the virtual world.

It is about Obama's lack of strategic judgment during a critical time in his campaign, and its testimony to how he would lead us through critical moments in the REAL world.

Obama REACTED. He did not think things through.

Obama could have communicated the intended "out of touch" message without the computer reference, but charged impulsively forward rather than making sure that McCain's physical limitations did not affect his keyboard skills.

Obama did not make a strategic gamble in his rebuttal. He just goofed up.

A little patience, thinking, and empathy would have saved Obama from making this mistake, from again putting him on the defensive, from alienating people, from further distracting Americans from the issues, as he is prone to say.

Whether or not the public should be "allowed" to take offense at Obama's clumsiness in this case is not an important issue; Obama's uninformed impulsivity IS.

Now, like it or not, Obama appears careless, ignorant and insensitive, a blustering, teenage bull in a china shop. If Obama is incapable of grounding himself long enough to research and consider how to respond effectively to an opponent he knows personally, how well will he fare when it comes to those about whom he knows virtually nothing?

During unexpected crises, the President of the United States cannot, ostensibly, vote “present” or lay low in Hawaii while waiting to assess the lay of the land as it relates to his or her own fortunes, or understand the perspectives of foreign leaders and cultures---not to mention those of the diverse American population----through quantitative statistics quoted on Real Clear Politics.

Obama’s did take action during this moment of crisis in his campaign, but careless actions often yield more problems than voting “present.” At a crucial moment during the battle for the White House, Obama unnecessarily rendered himself and his campaign troops vulnerable to easy attack through his lack of awareness and reactionary impulses.

Not a reassuring sign from a junior Senator who asks Americans (and the Global Citizenry) to trust in his capacity for “dialogue” as we all accompany his initiation into the vast and subtle realms of foreign policy.

Posted by: singularvox | September 15, 2008 9:06 PM

Analysis: Washington Post is not Factcheck.org, so quit trying to appear like it.

Factcheck.org is a non-partisan website that evaluates claims on both sides.

Here are the facts from an honest source:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

Without a doubt, McCain and Palin have been running a very sleazy campaign. They are spreading blatant lies about Obama's policies and they keep on doing it no matter how often they are debunked.

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 9:04 PM

Hoora! Hoora! Hoora!

Obviously, no one WANTS McCain to die in office -- he has put up with the rigours of a national campaign for TWO YEARS now -- his mother is also still alive, so that's a good sign. His father died on a military plane en route from Europe. His grandfather died from the stress of WWII the day after he returned home.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 9:02 PM

"bush has a 30% approval rating, not even republicans like bush"

Wrong, my friend. Another piece of evidence of the widespread ignorance on this board from both sides of the political fence. Bush's approval rating amongst Republicans is nearly 70%. It's the democrats and the sizeable independents who make up nearly all the 70% who hate him.

Posted by: Fact Checker | September 15, 2008 9:00 PM

Bob / very unhappy:

Are you the same person? Have you listened to the tape wherein Sen. Obama is alleged to be referring to Gov. Palin? After all this dust-up, if Sen. Obama AGAIN used the "lipstick on a pig" line, would you think maybe he's referring to Gov. Palin? Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 8:59 PM

Those of you white people still thinking about voting for Obama....

Envision for a moment the Obama family letting their hair all grow out into big, wide fuzzy afros after he becomes president. Hold it! Keep that thought in your heads for a few minutes.

There you go. I knew you'd decide that McCain is the better choice.

Now, if you're in the voting booth and find yourself wavering about who to vote for, just get that image back into your brain. The first family sporting Angela Davis style afros.

McCain/Palin 08

Posted by: McCain/Palin 08 | September 15, 2008 8:56 PM

With this latest ad, McCain has removed what little doubt I had left that he is not fit to be president. As a lifelong Republican, I have rarely agreed with much of what dems like Obama has done or proposed.

For McCain to say "I approved" and ad that falsely implies that Obama called Palin a "pig with lipstick" is beyond the pale. McCain has embarasses himself and the Republican Party.

Posted by: very unhappy | September 15, 2008 8:52 PM

There are probably about 50 million registered Republicans in the USA. One democrat below has offered the realistic suggestion that "all Republicans are criminals and should be locked up."

Now you know why the dems lose most elections. They can't even be logical!

Posted by: ha ha ha | September 15, 2008 8:46 PM

With this latest ad, Obama has removed what little doubt I had left that he is not fit to be president. As a lifelong Democrat, I have rarely agreed with much of what John McCain has done or proposed.

But this man laid his life on the line for our country and for Barack Obama to say "I approved" and ad that calls Sen. McCain "dishonorable" is beyond the pale. Obama has embarasses himself and the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Bob | September 15, 2008 8:45 PM

I'm overjoyed to hear that Sarah Palin will become our nation's first woman president before long - she's SUCH a cutie!

McCain's father died at 70, and his grandfather at 63. He has had four bouts with melanoma in the last few years, and his physicians have refused to release his comprehensive medical records which include the military ones that probably indicate post traumatic stress syndrome from his POW days. His forgetfulness, anger, impatience, and irrational lack of judgment all point to this type of disorder.

Posted by: Hoora! Hoora! Hoora! | September 15, 2008 8:43 PM

Republicans are criminals and should be locked up. They and they alone are responsible for this economy and even John Mccain admitted it telling a crowd of supporter that "The current administration is asleep at the switch". If that isn't a confession I don't know what is.

Posted by: JamesP | September 15, 2008 8:37 PM

bush has a 30% approval rating, not even republicans like bush, however mccain is leading in polls over obama, obviously people dont beleive that mccains policys are in any way similar to bush.

its downright ignorant to claim that all republicans follow the policys of a man who has spent more than any republican in history.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 8:41 PM

Me want presadent Palin. She pretty, she shoot moose, shoot russia from home. Yay world war three. John HUssein Mccain crash plane in vietnam. dummy. only palin make best and hottest president build bridge to anywhere and make daughter have rape baby. good for her, she good holy roller beautyqueen me can't wait for president Palin. Vote twice for her none for mccain. bad pilot. middle name hussein.

Posted by: Dave Miner | September 15, 2008 8:41 PM

Republicans are criminals and should be locked up. They and they alone are responsible for this economy and even John Mccain admitted it telling a crowd of supporter that "The current administration is asleep at the switch". If that isn't a confession I don't know what is.

Posted by: JamesP | September 15, 2008 8:37 PM

Those of you white people thinking about voting for Obama....

Envision for a moment the Obama family letting their hair all grow out into a big, wide fuzzy afros after he becomes president. Keep that thought in your heads for a few minutes.

There you go. I knew you'll end up voting for McCain. Just get that image back into your brain when you're in the voting booth if you find yourself wavering.

McCain/Palin 08

Posted by: McCain/Palin 08 | September 15, 2008 8:35 PM

dale, you certainly have some convoluted thoughts. I'm sure you have some most unusual interpretations of the institution of slavery and of the civil rights movement. I'm certain that you will prove that all historians and intellectuals are idiots. So, per this convoluted logic, the elite whom you detest are racists but they will vote for Obama which is why you detest them.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 7:53 PM

i only detest ignorance, something you seem to have in spades. racism at "higher levels of social strata" (which btw, believing there are social strata levels is something that leads to racism), becomes things like the beleif that a group of people's customs are less valuable than your own.

even rednecks who are seen as stupid, have unique and cheap means of using thier vehicles that many "suburbanites" would never comprehend. the idea of saving money by hanging out your laundry to dry is "savage". not "eco friendly".

but because i know it will drive you crazy and allow you to be as ignorant as you choose, i leave you with this.

"aint no better socialness than what i gots"

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 8:33 PM

THE POT NEEDS TO STOP CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!

Posted by: BJ | September 15, 2008 8:28 PM

THE POT NEEDS TO STOP CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!

Posted by: BJ | September 15, 2008 8:27 PM

First, the “sex education” ad isn’t a lie. The ad takes the text directly from the bill that Obama passed in committee “comprehensive sex education”. Regardless of what Obama thought, that’s what the bill said.

Second, speaking of distortions of fact, that 90% statistic is bull****. It doesn’t incorporate the many, many ways that McCain has opposed his party and truly been independent over the last several years. Additionally, some might say the "haha... he can't use a computer" ad was a bit below the belt.

Fix the log in your own eye before you complain about the speck in your brothers.

Third, the day I trust an ad that uses a quote from The New Republic, or an Op-ed from the Washington Post, is the day I’ll die.

But all this isn’t the issue. The issue is that Obama is whining because people are no longer paying attention to him. It’s not because of anything McCain is doing, it’s simply because people are tired of his empty rhetoric.

Develop an actual record to run on Senator Obama and then maybe you’ll earn the spotlight.

See my blog for more thoughts Dicta.

Posted by: btlowery | September 15, 2008 8:00 PM

dale, you certainly have some convoluted thoughts. I'm sure you have some most unusual interpretations of the institution of slavery and of the civil rights movement. I'm certain that you will prove that all historians and intellectuals are idiots. So, per this convoluted logic, the elite whom you detest are racists but they will vote for Obama which is why you detest them.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 7:53 PM

Did McCain Violate The Logan Act AND the Hatch Act?!?

John McCain took a trip to south america—billed as official Congressional travel--with his two colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. It’s been reported that prior to the trip, John McCain spoke to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at around 4pm and Uribe gave him some highlights of the operation to spring the hostages. When the Senators had dinner with Uribe that night, they were briefed on the operation but none revealed it because they said it was “classified.”

When McCain was asked about the operation once the hostages were freed, he revealed the fact that he’d been briefed, and praised the operation.

Here’s the problem, there’s a law known as the Logan Act that reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The conversation with Uribe definitely qualifies as "correspondence or intercourse" and we have a "controversy" with the Colombian government because the United States has been on their back for years to get these hostages freed. To be sure, the trip itself was cleared by the US government, but that's different from State expressly allowing McCain to have a direct "classified” conversation with President Uribe about an ongoing controversy. If McCain was going to have private conversations with a foreign leader, the conversation itself would have to be cleared.

John McCain’s conversation with Uribe raises some serious questions that make more investigation necessary. Namely:

Was John McCain’s conversation with Uribe classified?
Did McCain have prior approval for this conversation?
Did McCain’s staff (or that of Liebermann’s or Graham’s) clear the content of the conversation with Uribe through the State Department?
Once McCain knew this information, did he—in good faith—make that information known to the State Department?
When asked about it, McCain’s aide reportedly said:

"I don't think that there is an established protocol" for such briefings, said a McCain aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. " 'Protocol' is not a word I would associate with this."

Perhaps there isn’t protocol, but there are laws. And for someone who wants to have the top job of enforcing them, voters deserve to know the due diligence he did on this trip to ensure that he upheld the same laws that govern our diplomats.

Questions are also circulating about McCain’s recent trip to Canada . It too was billed as not being political but rather Senatorial. Therefore, he needs to act like a senator, and not as a presidential candidate. This is because according to the Hatch Act, US government resources and personnel cannot be used in support of political purposes. As the principal on the trip, McCain would have to adhere to these rules, and save the conversation about his campaign for his own plane, at his own events, and not those done on the taxpayer dime. However, in his remarks while in Canada, McCain repeatedly referred to his presidential campaign including in the trip’s headline speech.

WHAT A REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL!

Posted by: The ONLY Scott in the WORLD! | September 15, 2008 7:40 PM

racists are such funny people. Their fears are so irrational that their arguments reflect the irrationality of their position. There's just nothing there(as in a rational mind) to work with. That's why as you ascend the social strata one finds fewer and fewer racists.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 7:33 PM

its actually quite the opposite, but its well hidden in higher strata ;). case in point would be any genocide attempt successful or not in the last 300 years. all of which were initiated by "upper class" citizens against "lower class".

this election is also a great example of it, believing and claiming people to be racist who go to extreme lengths to adhere to political correctness they don't agree with out of respect.

it is obama's side which has issued countless statements about race, from bidens comments on voting for a black man. to whoopies statements about slavery. not to mention reverend wrights comments.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 7:39 PM

racists are such funny people. Their fears are so irrational that their arguments reflect the irrationality of their position. There's just nothing there(as in a rational mind) to work with. That's why as you ascend the social strata one finds fewer and fewer racists.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 7:33 PM

Those of you white people thinking about voting for Obama....

Envision for a moment the Obama family letting their hair all grow out into sizeable afros after he becomes president. Keep that thought in your heads for a few minutes.

There you go. I knew you'll end up voting for McCain. Just get that image back into your brain when you're in the voting booth if you find yourself wavering.

McCain/Palin 08

Posted by: McCain/Palin 08 | September 15, 2008 7:19 PM

It has nothing to do with expanding government. It is DEREGULATION that has caused this mess. If you have two teams playing football you still need a referee. Republicans campaign on the notion that the government sucks and it can't do anything correctly then they get elected and make it so. And unless you are making 15 mil a year you are a RUBE sir! You McCain Bush lovers are a bunch of RUBE's. Go look it up on "the googles."

Posted by: Rube | September 15, 2008 7:00 PM

lol, yes thats why the average age of republicans is older than that of democrats. because people get dumber with age.

deregulation is only an issue if people are abusing a system, so you can either blame the regulation (which can never really be controlled) or you can blame the people who are abusing the system (which can also not really be controlled). for the most part the issue is a lack of moral equivalency. "regulation" is defined by "ethical business practices" and to many regulators its "ethical" if it helps the shareholders by increasing the profits of the company.

the only way around these 2 major problems is a reworking of values, not a change in policies, obama has stated consistantly (check the stephanopolus (spelling?) interview) that his position of change is policy only, meaning he will change from one partisan ideology to another partisan ideology. 200 years of partisanship teaches us that partisan policys changes nothing.

its people like lincoln, washington, roosevelt and reagan who have challenged that mantra and proven to be above thier status due not to partisan ideals but due to an intense desire to change.

ive never seen obama take the initiative to any great ends, as such i will vote for that candidate whome i beleive most embodies teh spirit that changed this nation at previous times.

mccain is that president.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 7:19 PM

Those of you white people thinking about voting for Obama....

Envision for a moment the Obama family letting their hair all grow out into sizeable afros after he becomes president. Keep that thought in your heads for a few minutes.

There you go. I knew you'll end up voting for McCain. Just get that image back into your brain when you're in the voting booth if you find yourself wavering.

McCain/Palin 08

Posted by: McCain/Palin 08 | September 15, 2008 7:17 PM

well, you're right Mr. Obama would not find himself under honerable. He would however find himself under honorable man. And so would McCain. Let's stop the partisan name calling. Neither man is evil. They stand for certain issues and you decide which side of those issues suit you. But the name calling is nonsense.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 7:06 PM

It has nothing to do with expanding government. It is DEREGULATION that has caused this mess. If you have two teams playing football you still need a referee. Republicans campaign on the notion that the government sucks and it can't do anything correctly then they get elected and make it so. And unless you are making 15 mil a year you are a RUBE sir! You McCain Bush lovers are a bunch of RUBE's. Go look it up on "the googles."

Posted by: Rube | September 15, 2008 7:00 PM

Scott is a one issue voter: The Logan Act!

LOL - too funny!

Posted by: Sally | September 15, 2008 5:54 PM
*************
No Sally- Hypocrisy-
Claiming McCain wanted a 100 year war, Obama went to Iraq and negotiated a DELAYED exit for our troops!
How can that Not bother you Sally?

And Corn Ethanol...

And the his opposition to the Infant Protection Act...

And Tony Rezko....

And Bill Ayres...


*********
National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 6:43 PM

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 6:23 PM

that wasnt the issue, the issue was democrats in general.

no lobbyists, but contributions directly from the company. whilst the democratic party has done a great deal for encouraging the housing markets milking.

should it be simple donations i would agree, but if nothing else there is something fishy.

keep in mind that obama received and lied about campaign contributions during his senatorial campaign from rezko, and then after promising to donate all the rezko money, even now has yet to donate more than 80k/250k to charity.

its simply a string of fishy contributions, from organizations that have bad business practices. perhaps its nothing perhaps its something, when compared to his history im reluctant to say the least.

besides, its scary to think who could be providing those millions in 100 dollar contributions, its nice to think it might be people all over america, but based on the current economic status, is that realistic?

you can choose to be pessimistic to every fact and figure or you can choose to research it and know what goes were, thats up to you, i cant provide proof, because if i could obama would obviously be in jail, as would mccain if obama could prove he lied.

its all a matter of how you look at the facts, if you remain blind to any possibilities then even facts will not convince you.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 6:42 PM

An "honerable" campaign?

Obama is not an honerable man, period.

Wright, Rezko, Ayers, taking $100,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and blaming Republicans, cheating for the nomination.

PLEASE look up honerable Mr. Obama. It is not you.

Posted by: NO HYPOCRITES | September 15, 2008 6:41 PM

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 15, 2008 6:19 PM

do not misinterpret, im not defending bush, but hte policies that have bankrupted us started with clinton.

the policies that bankrupted this nation are policies of overspending and over expanding government.

mccain may not have a major economic plan, but he has a budget plan, which is more than i can say for barry O.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 6:27 PM

"unfortunately theres no way to prove WHY someone gave money"

Just on this, you'd get similar results for most companies in the USA.

Obama has had more donors who have donated more money than any other candidate. If you look at any company, typically Obama will have received most donations from their employees - simply because he's received most donations overall.

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 6:23 PM

WHY would America REWARD complete Republican FAILURE ?

Why ? Why would we ?

Never mind your tribal spin ! The GOP IS to blame for this god-damned mess. Deregulation in the financial sectors have led to this mess. As for the 'housing crisis' - see Bush speech 5 years ago about how deregulation has led to great gains in home ownership... Yes- and now home foreclosure. Great Job!

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 15, 2008 6:19 PM

Posted by: Ayne | September 15, 2008 6:11 PM

thats good to hear, and im sure we are all victims of ignorance/laziness at various times.

feel free to post any links you find that counter or suggest alternatives. hopefully ill catch them.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 6:17 PM

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 6:07 PM

i never asserted that he didnt, tho hillary is not known for her lipstick as much as palin, but im not getting into that, as hillary would not have taken umbridge to it even if she felt it was referring to her.

its about understanding who you are talking to and assessing what is offensive and isnt to the opposing party, obama has proven not only in his choice of biden but in his use of the lipstick phrase that he is not quite intelligent enough to have such foresight.

no one questions obama's education, only his intelligence.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 6:12 PM

Dale said:
"anyways, fun fun, enjoy. however i would think if democrats truly do beleive in the idea that they also put country first, they would seek out this information themselves.

i seek out information against who i am voting for (not that theres a shortage of it). but i know all the presumed negatives, and still find him substantially better than obama."

I agree with this statement. With the exception I find Obama substantially better than McCain, and I also believe if you are going to cast such accusations, one should back them up. Admittedly, I've been a bit lazy in the past and am guilty of not sourcing my data as well. Though I realized my error, thinking it doesn't do a voter any good to just throw unsubstantiated material out there and expect it to be taken as fact.
This being said, thank you for the link...at first glance, it looks like you may have a point...I'll need to study up.

Posted by: Ayne | September 15, 2008 6:11 PM

McCain turned desperate in the past few months, most notably via the Palin pick--"win at all costs" . . .

He is a slave to lobbyists . . . now becoming a slave to Rove--no reform here . . . !


Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 6:10 PM

McCain was flying fighter planes for America when Obama was still reciting Koran in some madrassa.How dare Obama question MCCains honor?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 6:10 PM

Dale: "if men wore lipstick then your assertion would be valid. the cheers of the crowds timing speak to this assertion. as well as teh numbers of people now outwardly calling palin a pig (feel free to troll comments on the posts articles for reference)."

If that's your logic, then McCain called Hillary a pig.

Think about it: wears lipstick, check. Crowd laughed and cheered when McCain used the 'lipstick on a pig' line, check. Other people call Hillary Clinton a pig, check.

Of course he didn't call her a pig, he was talking about Hillary Clinton's healthcare policy. Just as Obama was talking about McCain's policies.

Like I said before, you're believing what you want to believe, and that's fine, I respect your right to do that. But nothing in what Obama said supports your belief.

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 6:07 PM

look, anonymous, I'll grant that you're more reasonable than some others on the right(and left) but it looks like you just elevated the requirement from substantial evidence to evidence in a legal trial. I doubt that you mean it the way you say it, though, because it's not likely that these sites could not be used in a trial. One would have to weigh it against other evidence(doesn't imply that it's not good or truthful evidence, though). But when you reject this evidence it just sounds like you're rejecting that which doesn't support your ideology. The same with the media: if one doesn't like what they say they're, all of them, liberally biased.
Also, when we speak of Harvard, Princeton and the others that so many on the right have disdain for, in spite of the fact that they would lie, cheat and steal to get their kids in there, I know for a fact that they apply a rigorous discipline in their search for scientific or other evidence. Can they be wrong? Of course they can but certainly less so than someone who will not apply this discipline but simply accepts on faith. One can believe anything on faith.
I threw in the line about "who cares about the truth" as that has been a line used by some writers who support McCain.
Otherwise, it does appear you are a bit more reasonable than some others supporting McCain here. And I think it's important that we all realize there are good people on both sides of these questions. What concerns me is the "Bubba" voter so evident in some of these comments.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 6:06 PM

I have done plenty of research on my own, and do not blame you for not wanting to cite. But at the same time, all of my research (I don't use snopes or truthcheck or any of those sites, I try to find the information myself)indicates otherwise from what you have stated. That's why I ask. No matter how "credible" the source, it still may have an undertone that isn't noticable. Unfortunately, at this time it's time for me to clock out and head home, so I'll let you off the hook for now :P

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 6:05 PM

I have done plenty of research on my own, and do not blame you for not wanting to cite. But at the same time, all of my research (I don't use snopes or truthcheck or any of those sites, I try to find the information myself)indicates otherwise from what you have stated. That's why I ask. No matter how "credible" the source, it still may have an undertone that isn't noticable. Unfortunately, at this time it's time for me to clock out and head home, so I'll let you off the hook for now :P

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 6:05 PM

look, anonymous, I'll grant that you're more reasonable than some others on the right(and left) but it looks like you just elevated the requirement from substantial evidence to evidence in a legal trial. I doubt that you mean it the way you say it, though, because it's not likely that these sites could not be used in a trial. One would have to weigh it against other evidence(doesn't imply that it's not good or truthful evidence, though). But when you reject this evidence it just sounds like you're rejecting that which doesn't support your ideology. The same with the media: if one doesn't like what they say they're, all of them, liberally biased.
Also, when we speak of Harvard, Princeton and the others that so many on the right have disdain for, in spite of the fact that they would lie, cheat and steal to get their kids in there, I know for a fact that they apply a rigorous discipline in their search for scientific or other evidence. Can they be wrong? Of course they can but certainly less so than someone who will not apply this discipline but simply accepts on faith. One can believe anything on faith.
I threw in the line about "who cares about the truth" as that has been a line used by some writers who support McCain.
Otherwise, it does appear you are a bit more reasonable than some others supporting McCain here. And I think it's important that we all realize there are good people on both sides of these questions. What concerns me is the "Bubba" voter so evident in some of these comments.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 6:05 PM

look, anonymous, I'll grant that you're more reasonable than some others on the right(and left) but it looks like you just elevated the requirement from substantial evidence to evidence in a legal trial. I doubt that you mean it the way you say it, though, because it's not likely that these sites could not be used in a trial. One would have to weigh it against other evidence(doesn't imply that it's not good or truthful evidence, though). But when you reject this evidence it just sounds like you're rejecting that which doesn't support your ideology. The same with the media: if one doesn't like what they say they're, all of them, liberally biased.
Also, when we speak of Harvard, Princeton and the others that so many on the right have disdain for, in spite of the fact that they would lie, cheat and steal to get their kids in there, I know for a fact that they apply a rigorous discipline in their search for scientific or other evidence. Can they be wrong? Of course they can but certainly less so than someone who will not apply this discipline but simply accepts on faith. One can believe anything on faith.
I threw in the line about "who cares about the truth" as that has been a line used by some writers who support McCain.
Otherwise, it does appear you are a bit more reasonable than some others supporting McCain here. And I think it's important that we all realize there are good people on both sides of these questions. What concerns me is the "Bubba" voter so evident in some of these comments.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 6:05 PM

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 5:45 PM

if men wore lipstick then your assertion would be valid.

the cheers of the crowds timing speak to this assertion. as well as teh numbers of people now outwardly calling palin a pig (feel free to troll comments on the posts articles for reference).

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:59 PM

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 5:48 PM

your facts come straight off liberal bias, just do a little of your own research, palin FIRST PUT THE POLAR BEARS ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST.

she didnt expect it to get in the way of drilling ANWR. she then tried to get them taken off for the purpose of drilling ANWR. only to return them to the list afterwards, knowing that drilling would not affect polar bear poopulations.

im tired of having to go back to sights you should have taken the time to research yourselves, heck you could probably just string together "palin" "alaska" and "climate change" and you would get a google hit of an official site.

(and as a minor note on my previous statements against snopes and factcheck sites, if they were truly objective sites they would post the source of teh rumor as well as the source of the supposed proof and sites that may disagree and what facts they have).

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:54 PM

"palin IS on the side of science. she spearheaded 2 major committees on climate change which focus on the scientific issues involved. she also accepts the idea that most scientists beleive that climate change is not 100% CAUSED BY HUMANS."

Actually, her first position was that she believed that man wasn't to blame at all. She flipflopped after her Veep pick. And I'd love to have you cite your sources for the committees she "spearheaded". Because as I understand it, she has proven to be anti-environment. First she wants to drill on government protected wildlife habitats, then she wants to take polar bears off the endangered list. "Oh, they can just evolve to land bears" she says. Then she wants to allow arial hunting for wolves. Yeah, she seems pretty environment-concious alright.

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 5:48 PM

Dale: "that your allusion to it being obviously about the economy, is not shared by democrats. which would mean that a majority of the country finds it to be directly referring to her."

It wasn't about the economy, it was about McCain describing his policies as change. His policies are the pig, describing them as change is the lipstick. It was pretty clear, especially with the complete absence of any mention of Palin whatsoever.

As for your assertion that Democrats think it was about Palin, you haven't provided any evidence for that. I've quoted a reporter who was actually there stating that no-one he or his colleagues spoke to thought Obama was calling Palin a pig. You had a non-existent screenshot. Got anything else?

As for McCain not using other particular expressions, there's a difference between not using an expression that could be racially sensitive, and not using an expression that has a word someone else used recently. That expression was fine when McCain used it. I personally don't think Palin using the word 'lipstick' changes that.

It'd be pretty daft if we weren't allowed to use expressions that had a word someone else had used recently in them.

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 5:45 PM

Who cares about the truth: isn't that what you ask?

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 5:37 PM

no, and again your simply dodging the issue, factcheck.org and snopes as well as any fact checking site or newspaper clipping be it from the enquirer or the washington post is NOT COUNTED AS EVIDENCE in a legal trail.

how can you allow it to dictate your logical conceptual beliefs as to truth or lies.

secondly, palin IS on the side of science. she spearheaded 2 major committees on climate change which focus on the scientific issues involved. she also accepts the idea that most scientists beleive that climate change is not 100% CAUSED BY HUMANS.

the quote of palins on climate change states (and im paraphrasing but i could look it up if you want to be hardheaded) that the human affect on climate change is grossly exaggerated.

thirdly, the scientific method which all science revolves around bases on the purpose of gathering AS MUCH DATA AS POSSIBLE then reaching a hypothesis.

to ignore intelligent design laughs in the face of the scientific method itself.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:45 PM

and Obama is such a saint... oh, how we chose not to see something we don't want. And how quickly we forget.

Posted by: Kim | September 15, 2008 5:43 PM

"The screenshot on Michelle Malkin's site is a screenshot of this page (no, it wasn't taken down):
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/elizabethberry/Cgsq"

Yep, I don't see anywhere where she refers to Obama directly calling Palin a "pig". Is she using the same phrase to explain how Palin is the same as Bush, just painted up to look different? Yes. Is she calling Palin a blatant pig? No. Stop overreaching. That's the problem with the GOP, they try to stretch the truth till it snaps.

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 5:40 PM

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 5:33 PM

fair enough i was mistaken, point still made, that your allusion to it being obviously about the economy, is not shared by democrats. which would mean that a majority of the country finds it to be directly referring to her.

mccain has not used "a spade is a spade" or "the pot calling the kettle black" for those very reasons. whether they would make a valid point or not, they are inappropriate given the circumstances.

and whether you like it or not, a politician has to tiptoe around such statements, biden is another gaffetastic example of foreign policy flubs that could start a war.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:39 PM

let's get real. who do you think is more likely to concern themselves with facts: those "elitists" from Harvard and the like or racists for whom the truth is paramount(ha!ha!)? Look at creationism, climate, you name it and you know who falls on the side of science or who falls on the side of whatever fanciful story fills whatever need they have.
The fact check sites do have substancial evidence for declaring something false or true if you can work your way through your blinding partisanship. Yes, I already know that your answer is that these sites as well as the media are those kookie liberals who are always bothering themselves with the truth. Who cares about the truth: isn't that what you ask?

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 5:37 PM

I was delighted the first time I learned that the McCain family owed their immense wealth to the selling of alcohol to the masses.

There's never been anything more effective than alcohol to help people forget their pain and their troubles. If there were no alcohol (or lotteries), the impoverished in this country long ago would have risen up violently against the rest of us.

It is only because of alcohol that they've been kept in their place.

I'm pleased that this year we have a candidate whose wealth is largely derived from selling alcohol to people, and John McCain deserves our vote as a humble thanks for doing what it takes to keep our poor paralyzed and ineffective in front of the TV with a 6 pack of Bud lite.

Posted by: Daniel Fargo | September 15, 2008 5:35 PM

Dale: "where are you looking? ill find it for you as you are obviously having trouble. its not that recent of an article."

I'm looking on Michelle Malkin's site. I'm having trouble finding it for the same reason I'm having trouble finding a real live unicorn. They don't exist either.

The screenshot on Michelle Malkin's site is a screenshot of this page (no, it wasn't taken down):
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/elizabethberry/Cgsq

You really should apply for a job on McCain's campaign, you'd fit right in. They have no trouble repeatedly stating blatant lies either.

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 5:33 PM

McCain meant change...changing wives


McCain likes to illustrate his moral fiber by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and to demonstrate his commitment to family values. The truth is somewhat different.

The first Mrs McCain casts is the mother to McCain’s three eldest children. Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965, was the woman McCain dreamed of in the ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered and she suffered massive internal injuries, doctors werer forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

When John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self. ‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’

Some of McCain’s acquaintances portray the politician as a self-centered womanizer who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons. McCain was then earning little more than $40,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.


AND THE NEW WIFE

John McCain's powerful Washington, DC, lawyer, who secured a slap on the wrist for the Arizona Senator following the Keating Five scandal, was in close contact with federal investigators probing Cindy McCain's prescription drug abuse, throughout their nearly yearlong investigation, according to a new report Friday.

Although there was little doubt that McCain was misusing a medical-aid charity she ran in the early 1990s to obtain massive quantities of narcotic painkillers to feed her addiction, the Drug Enforcement Agency filed no federal charges against her. Instead, she was able to cut a deal that let her off the hook in exchange for completing a brief drug aversion program.

There is perhaps no one who can claim more credit for this auspicious outcome than John Dowd, an attorney with substantial clout in the nation's capital who came to McCain's aid after a former employee began telling the DEA what he knew about her drug problem.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Post_McCains_Keating_5_lawyer_pressured_0912.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:30 PM

Dale, I don't think you understand. Or maybe you just haven't used our judicial system. You don't have to have any facts of substance to file a lawsuit. All you need is a filing fee. Once you've paid the filing fee, you can call the lawsuit legitimate even though it will be quickly thrown out of court as soon as it comes before the bench

-----

Theres a valid lawsuit in the works against obama's citizenship. What I mean is that a group bent on muckraking has filed a lawsuit in a court. Of course, it will be found frivolous later on by a judge but until then the lawsuit can be touted as being LEGITIMATE.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:17 PM

at least republicans and the like have the intelligence to make claims with proof and back it up with their mind money and mouth. instead of simply calling mccain a liar and never providing any proof aside from left wing blogs that agree. (or media articles that cut out sentences for emphasis)

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:21 PM

Posted by: A lawyer | September 15, 2008 5:29 PM

Is this the kind of change McCain brings...just keep things as they are.


Barack Obama does not want to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. John McCain is not so clear on whether he supports such a move.

McCain has routinely sought to steer clear of alcohol-related matters. His wife, Cindy, is the chairwoman of the Hensley & Co. beer distribution company. Phoenix-based Hensley is one of the largest Anheuser Busch Companies Inc. distributorships in the country.

McCain has routinely not voted on issues directly impacting Hensley and alcohol-related sectors during his time in Congress.

The Obama campaign said the Illinois senator does not support a lower legal drinking age.

McCain supports Bush

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

Posted by: basementfrog | September 15, 2008 5:28 PM

"Voting for McCain isn't going to continue most of the Bush Stupid Policies. So while you would have been right in 2004 for voting for the loser, I don't think it'll work this time around. "

No, unfortunately he'll reword them slightly to make them his own policies. The country will still spiral out of control, but then we can't blame Bush, so the GOP will be safe.

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 5:27 PM

You know, I can't tell who the McCain-supporting WHITE RACISTS are on this board. Yeah, I know a few of them have come out of the closet and are blatent but I suspect many more are lurking behind "other reasons to vote for John McCain" when in fact they're against Obama because he's African-American.

My, my, how the racists masquerade in new clothes in this day and age!

Posted by: Dorothy | September 15, 2008 5:21 PM

the racist problem this election is less who is voting republican, but who is voting for barack BECAUSE HES BLACK.

face it, even racists would vote for a black republican over a white democrat, because theres a long history of voting republican, and republicans tend to have less policys for the poor (which racists tend to beleive equates to black).

this is something thats happened for decades and you can make your case either way. but generally republicans are accused of racism even when its not a black candidate in the democratic side.

this election is different, because there are people voting for barack simply because he looks black. in truth, he is arab/american, not that it matters either way.

however statements like biden suggesting people vote for obama because hes black, and whoopie goldbergs comments on the view about slavery being an issue are downright disgusting.

if you are gonna be against racism you have to be against both the positive and the negative forms of it. you cant just hold one accountable and let the other walk away scott free.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:27 PM

Mc Cain the patriot, thats the same man that said " your country first" so what he does ? He pick some incompetent lunatic that took six colleges to graduate for VP. He rather destroy our beloved country rather than lose the election, Mc cain is showing his true colors, I pray that his medical record will be looked over to prove his instability

Posted by: USMC | September 15, 2008 5:26 PM

"In a twisted sort of way I almost hope that McCain does win this election because four more years of Bush/McCain failed policies would for all intents and purposes end the Republican Party as we know it today."

Hey! That's why I voted for Bush in 2004. I could already see the downward spiral had begun in his approval ratings and I could easily predict what they would be 4 years further down the line. However, McCain is not nearly as stupid as George Bush. Sarah Palin is, but don't expect McCain to give Palin any substantive role as VP other than to travel around and look pretty. Voting for McCain isn't going to continue most of the Bush Stupid Policies. So while you would have been right in 2004 for voting for the loser, I don't think it'll work this time around.

Posted by: comments from Nevada | September 15, 2008 5:26 PM

Whatever road McCain is on, he still has to look down to see the road Obama is traveling.

Posted by: dan | September 15, 2008 5:25 PM

Theres a valid lawsuit in the works against obama's citizenship. What I mean is that a group bent on muckraking has filed a lawsuit in a court. Of course, it will be found frivolous later on by a judge but until then the lawsuit can be touted as being LEGITIMATE.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:17 PM

at least republicans and the like have the intelligence to make claims with proof and back it up with their mind money and mouth. instead of simply calling mccain a liar and never providing any proof aside from left wing blogs that agree. (or media articles that cut out sentences for emphasis)

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:21 PM

You know, I can't tell who the McCain-supporting WHITE RACISTS are on this board. Yeah, I know a few of them have come out of the closet and are blatent but I suspect many more are lurking behind "other reasons to vote for John McCain" when in fact they're against Obama because he's African-American.

My, my, how the racists masquerade in new clothes in this day and age!

Posted by: Dorothy | September 15, 2008 5:21 PM

In a twisted sort of way I almost hope that McCain does win this election because four more years of Bush/McCain failed policies would for all intents and purposes end the Republican Party as we know it today. They would become the 4th party gadflies that they deserve to be.

For all of you idiots in economic downtrodden states like Ohio, Pa and Michigan, you'll deserve what you get if you are actually stupid enough to vote for John McBush and Caribou Barbie..

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

Posted by: ex-Republican | September 15, 2008 5:20 PM

This is the racism that this country needs to get rid of. Ignorant people such as Justin need to be put in their place.

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 5:10 PM

agreed, but not at the expense of electing obama.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:17 PM

Theres a valid lawsuit in the works against obama's citizenship. What I mean is that a group bent on muckraking has filed a lawsuit in a court. Of course, it will be found frivolous later on by a judge but until then the lawsuit can be touted as being LEGITIMATE.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:17 PM

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 5:06 PM

where are you looking? ill find it for you as you are obviously having trouble. its not that recent of an article.

but i dont think i need to prove that point either way, because the point was to illustrate that your allusion that few democrats felt it was referring to palin, has been overshadowed by public opinion on the democratic side.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:16 PM

TO WHOEVER POSTED THE STUFF BELOW. WELL, PAT YOURSELF ON THE BACK. YOU'VE FIGURED OUT THE PLAN. AND THE PLAN WORKS. AND THAT'S WHY YOUR SIDE WILL LOSE AND OUR SIDE WILL WIN. SO GET USED TO IT!

Remember the vicious and unrelenting attacks on Bill Clinton's presidency including the Whitewater smear ? The McCain campaign is using the identical tactics to defeat Obama. They throw as much mud as possible and hope that some of it sticks. The public adores scandal and is fascinated by these methods. The media wittingly or unwittingly promotes the lies merely by reporting the attacks. There is no apparent downside to the smears and it keeps the opposition off balance. This is what Karl Rove brought to US politics and he has honed these methods over the years.

Posted by: TRUTHSAYER | September 15, 2008 5:13 PM

"John McCain?

Sarah Palin?

They're one of us. We must support them.

Barack Obama is not one of us. We don't need his kind being our bosses.

Don't vote for him. Vote McCain and Palin because it's your future and America's future not to be bossed by monkeys.
"

This is the racism that this country needs to get rid of. Ignorant people such as Justin need to be put in their place.

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 5:10 PM

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 5:02 PM

theres a valid lawsuit in the works against obama's citizenship, and unfortunately for obama's supporters, snopes.com and factcheck.org are not substancial evidence to prove someone guilty or innocent.

you cant just sight a newspaper article and claim innocence because it says you are.

republicans, as well as legislature in america requires hardcore proof (not doctored birth certificates made on photoshop).

its unfortunate that despite obamas outcry of "mccain lies" he has yet to begin one lawsuit against him.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:09 PM

We are fighting two wars of occupation, and borrowing from the Chinese to be able to afford it. No bid contracts, fighting with mercenaries, torture in the name of Freedom and Liberty, unrestrained greed on Wall Street and the melt-down of the economy are all issues that the Democrats should use to win, but I think they are gutless.

The deficit spending by the Republicans is truly staggering, but since they got a majority, the Democrats have hardly attempted to stand up to the President on any major issue, and have even proven themselves to be against the citizenry by voting overwhelmingly to extend the Patriot Act. The Democrats have a lot of excuses as to why they have been unable to end the unpopular war in Iraq, but they are willing to allow American men and women die, and willing to allow Iraqi civilians to be slaughtered to demonstrate that they are not weak on defense and thus get re-elected. By and large, the Democrats in power are just as self-serving as the Republicans before them.

Sooner or later, Democrats are going to have to figure out to make the argument that foreign intervention does not insure peace; that it does not have a history of insuring peace and that our National Security does not require intervention into every conflict simply because the President and his advisors say that it does. The Democrats have failed at this spectacularly at defining national security interests for well over a generation. Since Vietnam, we have invaded Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, fought the first Gulf War, bombed Kosovo, and been involved in flare-ups around the world. It is time for the Liberals to stop cringing every-time Rush Limbaugh mentions Hanoi Jane and try to define a rational policy for the use of America’s military might.

It is not the Executive Branch’s job to take us to War, it is the Congress’s job, and the Democrats in Congress by and large allowed themselves to get steam-rolled by the Republican propaganda machine into Iraq. They failed to do their jobs, almost as much as the triumvirate of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush have failed in safeguarding liberty for America

Almost as bad as the elected politicians and the cronies hired into bureaucratic positions have been the news media. Most major networks, and newspapers blatantly and bleatingly blurted out their breathless headlines on the rush to war in Iraq, with little attempt to dissect the administration's rationale.

Years later is too late to question authority. Too many people are dead and maimed. The pundits wonder how they could have known the brass would be polishing the truth, when it is the same story over and over, from Vietnam forward. We are given jingoistic platitudes about fighting for peace, told that the cost will be minimal, and the Press wallows in the garbage. At least the somewhat respectable journalists question their judgment after the fact, but in places like Fox news, they like the gutter and keep repeating the administration's talking points as if it were some mantra that would help them achieve Nirvana.

Posted by: James | September 15, 2008 5:09 PM

Did McCain Violate The Logan Act AND the Hatch Act?!?

John McCain took a trip to south america—billed as official Congressional travel--with his two colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. It’s been reported that prior to the trip, John McCain spoke to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at around 4pm and Uribe gave him some highlights of the operation to spring the hostages. When the Senators had dinner with Uribe that night, they were briefed on the operation but none revealed it because they said it was “classified.”

When McCain was asked about the operation once the hostages were freed, he revealed the fact that he’d been briefed, and praised the operation.

Here’s the problem, there’s a law known as the Logan Act that reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The conversation with Uribe definitely qualifies as "correspondence or intercourse" and we have a "controversy" with the Colombian government because the United States has been on their back for years to get these hostages freed. To be sure, the trip itself was cleared by the US government, but that's different from State expressly allowing McCain to have a direct "classified” conversation with President Uribe about an ongoing controversy. If McCain was going to have private conversations with a foreign leader, the conversation itself would have to be cleared.

John McCain’s conversation with Uribe raises some serious questions that make more investigation necessary. Namely:

Was John McCain’s conversation with Uribe classified?
Did McCain have prior approval for this conversation?
Did McCain’s staff (or that of Liebermann’s or Graham’s) clear the content of the conversation with Uribe through the State Department?
Once McCain knew this information, did he—in good faith—make that information known to the State Department?
When asked about it, McCain’s aide reportedly said:

"I don't think that there is an established protocol" for such briefings, said a McCain aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. " 'Protocol' is not a word I would associate with this."

Perhaps there isn’t protocol, but there are laws. And for someone who wants to have the top job of enforcing them, voters deserve to know the due diligence he did on this trip to ensure that he upheld the same laws that govern our diplomats.

Questions are also circulating about McCain’s recent trip to Canada . It too was billed as not being political but rather Senatorial. Therefore, he needs to act like a senator, and not as a presidential candidate. This is because according to the Hatch Act, US government resources and personnel cannot be used in support of political purposes. As the principal on the trip, McCain would have to adhere to these rules, and save the conversation about his campaign for his own plane, at his own events, and not those done on the taxpayer dime. However, in his remarks while in Canada, McCain repeatedly referred to his presidential campaign including in the trip’s headline speech.

WHAT A REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 5:08 PM

This is such rubbish:

"The sad part is that the childish name calling and dim witted understanding of governance get you about 50% of the vote. And we all know that the republicans just need to make it close enough so that when they rig the voting machines no one will say anything."


It's nonsense talk because we all know that all ANY political party has to do is convince the stupid and you're almost there to winning the election. We don't have to steal any votes, son. All we have to do is run a better campaign strategy. McCain will win cuz he knows very well that all he has to do is sway the dumber people of our society, and add just a few intelligents on top and he has it made.

Democrats, on the other hand, repeatedly belittle and smurk at the stupid people of our society. They forget that the stupid people vote too - and they're NOT voting democratic this time around for the most part.

Obama is too intellectual acting. Americans as a whole DON'T LIKE INTELLECTUALS.

Posted by: TRUTHSAYER | September 15, 2008 5:08 PM

"you can find the screenshot before it was changed on michelle malkins website."

I'm looking at her site RIGHT NOW, and what she has is a screenshot of the BLOG POST I mentioned before. It doesn't even mention Obama. It's an unofficial blog post from a user called Elizabeth Berry. Learn to read.

Your statement that "the webpage of the democratic national party had an article instantly stating "obama calls palin pig" is blatantly untrue. Are you applying for a job with the McCain campaign or something? ;-)

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 5:06 PM

Posted by: Ayne | September 15, 2008 4:52 PM

its ironic you say i allege he has broken the law, when obama claims that mccain has lied during a campaign which is also breaking the law, but has not set any lawsuits against him (knowing that then obama would be giving mccain "legal standing" to countersue for defamation of character).

http://patterico.com/2008/09/15/obama-friendly-lehman-bros-to-file-chapter-11-bankruptcy/

unfortunately theres no way to prove WHY someone gave money, however its basic public knowledge that clinton was a leader of the housing markets being milked for profits, if you want to look up his last few speeches before leaving the presidency.

anyways, fun fun, enjoy. however i would think if democrats truly do beleive in the idea that they also put country first, they would seek out this information themselves.

i seek out information against who i am voting for (not that theres a shortage of it). but i know all the presumed negatives, and still find him substantially better than obama.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 5:05 PM

John McCain?

Sarah Palin?

They're one of us. We must support them.

Barack Obama is not one of us. We don't need his kind being our bosses.

Don't vote for him. Vote McCain and Palin because it's your future and America's future not to be bossed by monkeys.

Posted by: Justin | September 15, 2008 5:04 PM

don't forget that most christians supported racism for many years. Some still do although many certainly don't. But even this was begrudging historically, very difficult for many evangelicals and other fundamentalists to get to this point. It's interesting how at first lying is unacceptable for most of us. But then if one's candidate, McCain, is the liar it suddenly is acceptable. Now we establish lying is acceptable and the real problem is the whiner Obama. Any individual for whom truth doesn't matter is not the kind of individual I would want to know. He has no integrity. Nevermind the whining from the right when Obama was getting so much more press coverage: oh! the whining by Faux News and the ilk. To me, I don't care who the liar is. I have too much pride to let anyone think I could be taken in by it. No one's lie, Obama's or McCain's, is acceptable to me. It is true that there is misrepresentation on both sides but that on the right is incredible. All one has to do is look at fact check sites to see the imbalance. And the insipidity of an allegation that Obama is not a citizen or is a Muslim is so extreme that one has to consider possible racism for that kind of allegation.

Posted by: richard | September 15, 2008 5:02 PM

This whole thread is a perfect example of the differences between obama supporters and republicans. The obama supporters have well thought out and reasoned arguments backed by knowledge and thought and the republicans are throwing out racial slurs, jesus references (not much about the poor though?!?) and name calling. The majority of McCain posts on here make me question how so many people who are so ignorant can even use the computer even though McCain can not.

The sad part is that the childish name calling and dim witted understanding of governance get you about 50% of the vote. And we all know that the republicans just need to make it close enough so that when they rig the voting machines no one will say anything.

Rome is burning and it is a shame to watch this. Sixty years on top and that is all we get I guess.

Posted by: Sad | September 15, 2008 5:01 PM

Remember the vicious and unrelenting attacks on Bill Clinton's presidency including the Whitewater smear ? The McCain campaign is using the identical tactics to defeat Obama. They throw as much mud as possible and hope that some of it sticks. The public adores scandal and is fascinated by these methods. The media wittingly or unwittingly promotes the lies merely by reporting the attacks. There is no apparent downside to the smears and it keeps the opposition off balance. This is what Karl Rove brought to US politics and he has honed these methods over the years. Since his students run the McCain campaign it is no surprise that this is one of the dirtiest elections on record. The lies they have promoted include the pig/lipstick story, the sex education for toddlers smear, that Obama is a Muslim, that his tax plan will hurt the middle class, etc. They have no shame and McCain who has recruited these people to win his election has no shame either. He had no shame when he chose an inexperienced woman from Alaska to be his running mate. The Rove team gloats about having converted the 2008 election into an American Idol popularity contest. McCain has plumbed the lowest depths of electoral politics and it is obvious how and why he has chosen this path. He was bound to lose in a straight-talking contest.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:59 PM

I realize that this is a very small point but, the new excuse for McCain not knowing haw to use a computer because of his war wounds is disingenuos at best. McCain was able to get himself back on flying status after retruning from Vietnam. As an ex combat pilot myself I can tell you that it would take some incredible pull with the flight surgeon to get on flying status with even the smallest physical problem. The inability to use a keyboard or mouse would have to be disqualifying. So either McCain used his connections to get back on flight status even though he was unqualified, or he is using war wounds as an excuse for not knowing how to use a computer.

By the way there are quadraplegics who can use a computer, so it would be hard to imagine how McCain wouldn't be able to use one.

Posted by: captbilly | September 15, 2008 4:58 PM

Anonymous said:

"intelligent black man becoming president.

-ayne

where?"

Hmm? I sense some ruffled feathers...another one of those self loathers I suppose...pity


Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:58 PM

"You aren't even worth my time. But, Obama is a MUCH better communicator than anyone the republicans have put on the ticket since maybe Regan (and he was a senile actor). He can communicate effectively whereas McCain stumbles through speaches and says things like Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran. Get a life. And Palin can't speak intelligently about anything. You are an idiot sir.

Obama's only trouble communicating is that he is too intelligent to relate to 90% of the republican base. Oh yeah, and he is black which I know is a big problem for republican types. The rest of the world would love Obama. Republicans are great because they don't care if they are right or even believable. They just spew nonsence and people actually eat it up."

Err, um, um, err, I, umm, what was I saying, err, I totally, umm, where is that umm telempro...telepr...er...thingee, I umm totally..err speak louder Michelle I'm having a hard time hearing you, err, um, I totally agree with this toast, ...er no not um toast, Michelle said post, I err, totally agree with this post.

Posted by: Barrack the great communicator | September 15, 2008 4:54 PM

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 4:47 PM

once again the webpage of the democratic national party had an article instantly stating "obama calls palin pig" this article was taken down as soon as obama claimed to not have called her one.

you can find the screenshot before it was changed on michelle malkins website.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:54 PM

Dale said:

"because those companys have a history of investing in the democratic party (including clinton who was the first to suggest "the housing market is the way of the future")."

should he take the "leadership" he would be risking his freedom."

sources please...I'm not too impressed by either party's role in our economic crisis. It's only fair you source where you got your information though.
Further, it would benefit to prove how Obama would be risking his future. You are alleging he has broken the law, prove it.

Posted by: Ayne | September 15, 2008 4:52 PM

"Is his race more important than GOD's Laws?"

Would you please show me exactly what God's laws are? I would really like to see the documentation of these laws, signed by God. Thanks.

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 4:51 PM

Enough is Enough!

Republicans have us at war in two countries as a result of Republican lies and deceptions, and we might be in two more wars--Iran and Pakistan--by November. We have alienated the entire Muslim world and most of the rest.

The dollar has lost 60% of its value against the euro, and the once mighty dollar is losing its reserve currency role.

The Republicans' policies have driven up the price of both oil and gold by 400%.

Inflation is in double digits. Employment is falling.

The Republican economy in the 21st century has been unable to create net new jobs for Americans except for low wage domestic services such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks and hospital orderlies.

Republican deregulation brought about fraud in mortgage lending and dangerous financial instruments which have collapsed the housing market, leaving a million or more homeowners facing foreclosure. The financial system is in disarray and might collapse from insolvency.

The trade and budget deficits have exploded. The US trade deficit is larger than the combined trade deficits of every deficit country in the world.

The US can no longer finance its wars or its own government and relies on foreign loans to function day to day. To pay for its consumption, the US sells its existing assets--companies, real estate, toll roads, whatever it can offer--to foreigners.

Republicans have run roughshod over the US Constitution, Congress, the courts and civil liberties. Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they believe that our civil liberties make us unsafe--precisely the opposite view of our Founding Fathers. Yet, Republicans regard themselves as the Patriotic Party.

The Republicans have violated the Nuremberg prohibitions against war crimes, and they have violated the Geneva Conventions against torture and abuse of prisoners. Republican disregard for human rights ranks with that of history's great tyrants.

The Republicans have put in place the foundation for a police state, which they have no problem using against fellow citizens!

We must get the Republicans totally out of power, or we will have no country left for any of us!


Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:48 PM

dale: "wrong aengil, the democratic party's official webpage had an article minutes after obama's speech with teh headline OBAMA CALLS PALIN A PIG."

No it didn't. I suspect you're confusing that (deliberately?) with a blog post from a user (i.e. not an official) that was hosted on their site, that said 'Palin was lipstick on the Republican pig'. And that wasn't even calling Palin a pig either. It's calling the Republican party a pig and Palin the lipstick.

"secondly, obamas full context spoke of an "old fish" and "8 years" direct references to mccains age and the republicans term in presidential power."

No, that is not a direct reference to McCain's age. I don't think you know what 'direct' means. It's not even an indirect reference unless you choose to believe it is.

The actual quote was: "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years."

You're quite correct that the eight years refers to the Republican's last two terms. But the 'old fish' in this context is the Republican policies. That was the subject. Obama's point was that McCain is describing his policies as 'change', when they're really the same old policies we've had for the last eight years.

You may disagree with what he was actually saying of course, but that doesn't mean he was calling Palin a pig (he wasn't) or McCain a fish (wasn't doing that either).

The bottom line here is, you're believing what you want to believe, and nothing Obama actually said supports your beliefs. You're free to believe what you want of course, but expect to get corrected if you start portraying your beliefs as facts. They're not.

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 4:47 PM

Cons3rvative said:
"Somewhere I read 95% of blacks will vote for Obama. What I don't understand is that many african-americans are Christians. Don't they know that voting for Obama is voting FOR abortion and gay marriage? Is his race more important than GOD's Laws?"

I don't know, maybe it's because most Christians I know (no matter the color), don't know what it truly means to be Christian, and even if they did, they often don't walk the talk...

Posted by: Ayne | September 15, 2008 4:45 PM

Senator Obama has missed a golden opportunity to display leadership in holding those accountable for this scandal.

Posted by: Melvin | September 15, 2008 4:34 PM

because those companys have a history of investing in the democratic party (including clinton who was the first to suggest "the housing market is the way of the future").

should he take the "leadership" he would be risking his freedom.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 4:44 PM

intelligent black man becoming president.

-ayne

where?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:39 PM

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 4:39 PM

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 4:39 PM

The average American voter doesn't know the differences in the parties.

Somewhere I read 95% of blacks will vote for Obama. What I don't understand is that many african-americans are Christians. Don't they know that voting for Obama is voting FOR abortion and gay marriage? Is his race more important than GOD's Laws?


Democrats are abortionists and gay right crusaders. They also want to raise taxes.

Republicans don't believe in abortion, and are against gay marriage. They want to cut taxes.

They don't know the differences in the media coverage either. Washington post - liberal democrats (they are for abortion and gay rights) Same with New York Times and all news and talk shows on ABC. (all owned by liberal democrats who are misleading our country by not balancing the news and not giving our citizens the factual information and opposing viewpoints to make up their own minds.

I cannot trust Washington Post, LA Times, New York Post and ABC. I will not purchase anything advertised on their channels or print.

It's my small protest.

For me it came down to when Rick Warren asked the candidates " When does a baby have rights" (talking about abortion)
Obama said "thats above my paygrade"
Mccain said "at conception"
case closed for me. I'm voting for Mccain!

Posted by: cons3rvative | September 15, 2008 4:38 PM

PALIN IS BUSH!

Of all the possible choices, McCain chose a running mate whose views and vaules are the same as Bush. I want change!

Posted by: Thoren58 | September 15, 2008 4:33 PM

i got 35 cents in my pocket, u can have it, you need it if you think palin is anything like bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:37 PM

Why isn't Senator Obama asking Henry Waxman to conduct hearings on the financial scandal that has hit the private sector and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This financial scandal is of biblical proportions and there should be people going to jail for white collar crime on both sides of the political isle and the CEO's need to be forced to start squealing like pigs to start fingering those who were involved in the government with this mess.
Senator Obama has missed a golden opportunity to display leadership in holding those accountable for this scandal.

Posted by: Melvin | September 15, 2008 4:34 PM

proudly white said:
"as a person who believes in the superiority of the white race i am proudly adding my vote to all the rest of you who are voting for john mccain & sara palin. its an honor to be in your company"

If you were really proud and white, you wouldn't feel so threatened by the prospects of an intelligent black man becoming president. You know...because either way you'd still be 'inherently superior', and would have no need for antiquated thoughts of discrimination in order to give yourself an un-necessary edge. Because of course those that are superior are above those kinds of things.

However, it sounds more like you are a self loathing white person who overcompensates with ultra-white bravado. You poor thing.

I don't associate my whiteness with superiority. Especially since that kind thinking is below those that are truly superior. Good luck with that though...


Posted by: Ayne | September 15, 2008 4:34 PM

Obama is into that black liberation theology and that's why we cannot allow any of those people to ever be elected to president or VP capacity. They must be kept out of power at all costs so please vote McCain/Palin 2008.

Posted by: Sarge | September 15, 2008 4:34 PM

"Americans are starting to realize that he would rather lose his integrity than lose an election. "

I would say that McCain better fits this bill. Yes, Obama has been forced into a corner and has to fight or surrender, so he's fighting. But McCain has been doing most of the smearing and lying this entire campaign. Obama stretching the truth? Yes. Obama bold faced lying? No. McCain stretching the truth? Yes. McCain bold faced lying? Absolutely. And on more than one occasion. There's a difference between going on the offensive and just being offensive. McCain falls into the latter of the two.

Posted by: Xander | September 15, 2008 4:34 PM

PALIN IS BUSH!

Of all the possible choices, McCain chose a running mate whose views and vaules are the same as Bush. I want change!

Posted by: Thoren58 | September 15, 2008 4:33 PM

McCain may be his own man and not Bush - it's good Obama and Biden are focused on the policies now. Read the recent profile about McCain in Atlantic, all he really cares about is the military. The rest, the economy, education, health care etc. are just politics, and it doesn't matter what position he takes on them.

Posted by: eric | September 15, 2008 4:31 PM

Posted by: jiu | September 15, 2008 4:17 PM

i cant wait until democrats start taking newspaper articles into court as "proof" that john mccain is lying, just so legislation can completely make fun of them.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:23 PM

So now that people are finally tired of Obama and how lame he is with all his glitzy, 'feel good' false promises, Obama's crying foul. Give me a break. I mean, that's just what I want as president -a whiny moron who can't handle stress. If he can't take the heat, he needs to get out of the kitchen. Little old Alaskan Palin's got him running scared?? Too funny!!!

Honesty and politics -don't make me laugh. Welcome to the real world, Obama. Better learn quick, buddy, b/c the sharks are circling.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:21 PM

McCain Economic advisor writes an op-ed on the economy Sunday. "A NATION OF EXAGGERATORS: Quit Doling Out That Bad-Economy Line."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202415.html

Please don't let these people into office.

Posted by: jiu | September 15, 2008 4:17 PM

Barack Obama, once known for his honesty and integrity, has done an about face and surrendered his values by employing the same tactics and people that he once opposed. Americans are starting to realize that he would rather lose his integrity than lose an election. How far he has fallen.

Posted by: sad | September 15, 2008 4:16 PM

Posted by: independent thinker | September 15, 2008 4:03 PM

im not the one belittling it, obama is after having done it.

stop being so democrat and twisting peoples words.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccgh4rp3dcc

John McCain, once known for his honesty and integrity, has done an about face and surrendered his values by employing the same tactics and people that he once opposed. Americans are starting to realize that he would rather lose his integrity than lose an election. How far he has fallen.

Posted by: Dave | September 15, 2008 4:10 PM

as a person who believes in the superiority of the white race i am proudly adding my vote to all the rest of you who are voting for john mccain & sara palin. its an honor to be in your company

Posted by: proudly white | September 15, 2008 4:06 PM

Dale, I'm disgusted that you would put down community organising. Just because Obama belittled it later doesn't mean it's something to be littled.

Put a thinking cap on. Don't just repeat and believe whatever it is that your candidate says.

Posted by: independent thinker | September 15, 2008 4:03 PM

More smear from McShame! Obama did the honorable thing by staying away from family when launching his critique. He should have pointed that political water gun at Sarah Palin, and doused her for being a staunch social conservative with a unwed, pregnant daughter who's under 18. And to the AZ Maverick--you once were, now you tow the Repub line more than Fox news. What's in a word?

Posted by: indytucker | September 15, 2008 4:01 PM

Please people, think twice before submitting postings of any more than about 2 paragraphs. People are supposed to be working those who are here pecking and reading away so they're unlikely to have an attention span of more than about 2 paragraph's worth.

Please be considerate of others.

Thanks. Maybe the best chest-beating candidate win.

Posted by: bORED | September 15, 2008 4:01 PM

Posted by: Christians for Obama | September 15, 2008 3:43 PM

firstly, obama himself made fun of his experience as a community organizer, once saying "its a lost cause".

secondly, its not about whether mccain is a maverick or not, its about whether or not hes more of a maverick.

90% voting record of mccain with his party, 97% voting record of obama with his party.

its pretty clear cut.

as for your spouting of "Womens issues" to a christian that should be offensive, women should not have issues that are and different from a man for 2 reasons.

1) a man should care as much about womens issues as women do.

2) women should not set their issues apart from a man because those choices affect men as well.

i find it downright offensive that you keep claiming to put your country first, but have done nothing but put down.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 4:00 PM

WE THE MUSLIM PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT ALL THINKING MUSLIMS MUST VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN TO BE THE PRESIDENT. REASON BEING THAT HE IS CERTAIN TO DO THINGS THAT CAUSE MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO UNITE AGAINST HIM.

WE BELIEVE JOHN MCCAIN IS THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB.

PRAISE TO ALLAH PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ACCORDINGLY.

Posted by: MUSLIMS FOR MCCAIN | September 15, 2008 3:58 PM

Hmm.. Interesting posts.

Yes, if you don't believe that Palin has lied about the "Bridge to Nowhere" then that is your own prejudice speaking. Not truth as there is video taped evidence to the contrary.

Yes, if you believe that Obama called Palin a pig that is your own prejudice speaking. He referenced McCain's policies repeated prior to using the statement and it was clearly about policy. No mention of Palin was made at all.

Yes, if you don't believe that the McCain campaign is lying that is your own prejudice speaking. There is overwhelming evidence that McCain's camp is propogating lies. Do a google search on it. Look it up on any fact checker site.

The thing is, if you want, you can believe in anything and ignore that truth. You can ignore any reality if you choose.

That is what the Republicans are relying on. It is getting the ignorant and believers to support them because of their belief and not reasoning based on sound information and evidence.

Manipulation, lies, and misdirection. To a point that even Rove has said that McCain has gone too far.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/14/rove-mccain-attacks-have-gone-one-step-too-far/

Posted by: Mike in Sac | September 15, 2008 3:55 PM

"This Christian is voting for Obama and praying for an Obama victory. If you want to vote for someone else, so be it. If you want to pray for someone else to win, so be it. Do so at our collective peril. I truly put country first, hence, I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by: Christians for Obama"

So, even tho Obama is a 20 year disciple of Black Liberation Theology (BLT), as a Christian, you believe he will govern for all of us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
""Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love." [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]"
The above statement is what Obama has spent 20 years supporting, financially and in faith.
And as a Christian, you don't find that statement offensive? Does YOUR God love everybody the same, or not? Can you reject God's love? Do you agree that we should "destroy our oppressors (in this case ALL Whites)"?
This is not a "smear" on Obama. It's the truth. Trinity Church even says on it's website that it is a BLT community.
http://www.obamareligion.net/
Well, as a Democratic Christian. I can't support him. His so called "faith" is abhorrent to me. And I darn sure don't want a President that believes this tripe, and raises his children in the racist environment.
Do what you feel is best for you, but at least do a little research.
Or stick your head in the sand, I don't care. But for others that read this, at least research your candidate, because the DNC and MSM isn't gonna do it for you. And Obama has hid his real beliefs for 21 months, so don't look for him to answer any questions about it.

Posted by: RoBoTech | September 15, 2008 3:53 PM

Look below, people. This is EXACTLY what happens when we let methamphetimines get into our rural areas. PLEASE FIGHT THE METH!

-------------------------------------

For folks out there that believe Obama was taking a cheep shot at Sarah Palin, I suggest retaking Logic 101. "That's like putting lipstick (Sarah Palin) on a pig (John McCain Campaign)". Do I have to explain everything to you people???????

Posted by: anonymous2 | September 15, 2008 3:44 PM

Posted by: From the Deep Sout | September 15, 2008 3:52 PM

Although I didn't personally see the video in which Obama called Palin a pig, I'm sure it's true. It would fit one of those people like Obama to talk like that, talk in an uncivilized monkey kind of way so no way am I voting for that monkey I'm voting mccain all the way.

Posted by: Derick | September 15, 2008 3:50 PM

For folks out there that believe Obama was taking a cheep shot at Sarah Palin, I suggest retaking Logic 101. "That's like putting lipstick (Sarah Palin) on a pig (John McCain Campaign)". Do I have to explain everything to you people???????

Posted by: anonymous2 | September 15, 2008 3:44 PM

Is there any Obama story as touching as the story of what McCain did for Udall?

Yes, all the tireless community service he did while in Chicago. Community service the republicans tried to make a joke of during their convention. The same republicans who laughed as John Kerry the decorated war hero. Republicans have lost their way due to avarice.

I love my country. I put my country first. I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by: Christians for Obama | September 15, 2008 3:43 PM

Obama having trouble talking to world leaders as compared to whom? McCain? He has the understanding of an old man set in his ways who can't use the internet and has no clue about other cultures and current world events. Palin? She is a woman. I hate to break it to some of you but women are not respected in much of the rest of the world, and some leaders will have an impossible time talking with, debating with and listening to a woman in their house. Barrack lived in another country for some of his life, has much more culture difference in his background, and is intelligent enough to learn how to most effectively communicate with people from different cultures and belief systems. So how can you even begin to argue that Obama will have a hard time talking to other world leaders? When he traveled throughout the world he was given praise ALL OVER THE WORLD! Do you even think before making these statements or just spit something out and smile about how smart you must be?

The fact that Obama will almost instantly gain respect from around the globe should be the nail in the coffin for this election.

Posted by: Reality | September 15, 2008 3:38 PM

To anyone supporting McCain, please do an internet search of his voting record on our troops and veterans, on women's issues, on our economy, on the environment, etc. After you have done this research and learned what I have learned, then I think hands down you will not be able to vote for McCain. Do your research if in fact you put country first. I have done my research and I learned that McCain is no friend to the United States. No friend at all.

The reason you people come to threads like this one and spew your lies, your sound bites, your lipstick on a pig nonsense, is because you know there is nothing else to use to defend a vote for McCain. If you were to come here and give facts as to why you believe McCain is a "maverick," then people might be willing to consider them. But you can't do that for McCain and you can't do it for Palin.

So go ahead and place your check in the box for the McCain/Palin ticket and should, God forbid, McCain wins, then you will have only yourself to blame for this country being finished.

Posted by: Christians for Obama | September 15, 2008 3:35 PM

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 3:28 PM

i voted for kerry somewhat begrudgingly, because he was more fiscally conservative than bush, and i wind up being proven right by our current economy.

i have seen obamas economic strategy, and know that hands down it can do nothing but bbankrupt us, and leaves absolutely no fallback in case of a NECESSARY war or catastrophic event.

john mccain has little to say on economy, because his focus is on government budgeting, and its hard to link the two in the publics eye. however, fiscal conservation is the #1 issue for me every election, and obama is about the furthest from it possible.

i could never would never in a box, i could not would not with a fox.

say no to fiscal liberalism!!!! freedom is good, but not with my money.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 3:34 PM

I guess calling a woman VP candidate "pig" isn't dirty and dishonorable at all.


Why do you people insist this actually happened????

Do you have aliens and space ships on the roof of your house too?


I think it is dishonorable to accuse someone of something you know they didn't do.


As far the pig accusation you may as well just accuse him od making love to collie dog on the 50 yard line at a Chicago Bears football game.

It would have the same validity.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 3:32 PM

Voting for McCain makes someone a "true Christian." Look up the story of what John McCain did for democrat Morris Udall of Arizona during Udall's last years. Then you'll KNOW you're voting for a true Christian.

Is there any Obama story as touching as the story of what McCain did for Udall?

Posted by: ?? | September 15, 2008 3:31 PM

You aren't even worth my time. But, Obama is a MUCH better communicator than anyone the republicans have put on the ticket since maybe Regan (and he was a senile actor). He can communicate effectively whereas McCain stumbles through speaches and says things like Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran. Get a life. And Palin can't speak intelligently about anything. You are an idiot sir.

Obama's only trouble communicating is that he is too intelligent to relate to 90% of the republican base. Oh yeah, and he is black which I know is a big problem for republican types. The rest of the world would love Obama. Republicans are great because they don't care if they are right or even believable. They just spew nonsence and people actually eat it up.

Posted by: Jack | September 15, 2008 3:31 PM

And double talk from you, JakeD. No surprise, as all McCain supporters can do is lie and doubletalk and try to muddy waters. I won't be a party to it, and my bet is most Christians won't be a party to it either. Your question was answered, but like most McCain supporters, you refuse to see the truth. You see what you want to see. How sad.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 3:29 PM

This Christian is voting for Obama and praying for an Obama victory. If you want to vote for someone else, so be it. If you want to pray for someone else to win, so be it. Do so at our collective peril. I truly put country first, hence, I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by: Christians for Obama | September 15, 2008 3:24 PM

how are u putting country first?

in the words of king david "i will not sacrifice to the lord that which costs me nothing".

is a prayer and a vote really all your sacrificing?

i disagree with your choice of obama, i think you are misinformed, but i respect your stance. however i question your pride.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 3:29 PM

Are any of you even paying attention to the candidates? First off, you got someone with no experience to be president ripping on a vice president candidate who has more experience then he does. Look up there back grounds and its easy to see Palin has more experiece and she is only running for VP. I wouldnt elect a first year med school student chief of surgery. Why would we elect someone like Obama to be president? He needs to get more experience behind his belt.

Second what is Obama running on? What are his policies? I keep hearing that he is for Change but what change? He wants to raise taxes (not a change I want), he wants our healthcare run by the government (not a change I want), he wants to apologize to other countries for americans not doing what they should (not a change I want), wants to negotiate with terrorists with out pre-conditions (not a change I want). Dont vote for change until you know what he is planning on changing. The grass may not be greener on the other side folks.

Lastly, why would you vote for a person who associates with people like Rev Wright, Rezko, Aires, Farrakhan, etc. These are not the types of people I want a president to hang around. A racist, a thief, a terrorist, and an extremist. Are you people really going to vote for a person who associates with people like this?

I dont really like McCain but when you look at the issues and the people invloved there is just no way an intelligent and informed person could risk voting for Obama. I think we need to wake up and see Obama for who he is and what he stands for. Dont blindly follow anyone do some research and look at the facts.

Posted by: Wake Up America | September 15, 2008 3:29 PM

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:59 PM

Kerry was awful. I begrudgingly voted for him because I was anti-Bush. I was rooting for McCain in 2000, and I would've voted for McCain, until he was taken down.

I actually would've voted for McCain if Clinton won the Dem nomination. I think that 28 years: 4 years GHW Bush, 8 years B Clinton, 8 years GW Bush, 8 years HR Clinton would've been disastrous. You can't have the same 2 groups of people running the country for that long.

And I didn't have anything really bad to say against McCain. I might not agree with everything he says (nor do I Obama), but I thought it would be a good race about real issues. But, as I was watching the Rebup convention, and listened to personal attack after attack on Obama...it turned me off completely. The Dems were attacking, but their whole thing was to make McCain and Bush the same people. Which was/is a smart strategy. Bush = unpopular, so if McCain = Bush, then McCain = unpopular. But they kept it mostly about policy decisions. It wasn't anything personal about McCain. After that convention, it has been a downward spiral, and it's a shame.

I still don't know what McCain's economic policies are, other than keeping the status quo of the Bush tax cuts, and that he is a Super-Christian when he goes to a giant church in Orange County (even though it was never brought up during his previous presidential attempt) Other than that, I know nothing about him, and even less about Palin. I don't care about her family life. I care about if she can step into being president. Any repub who thinks that she would've been a great choice 6 months ago is lying to himself. If she is so great, why didn't she run for President herself?

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 3:28 PM

And by the way, voting for McCain does not make someone a "true Christian." Quite the opposite, in fact. Since McCain will continue the bloodbath that has been the Bush administration, I highly doubt that anyone who is a "true Christian" would pray for McCain to win, nor vote for him.

Posted by: Christians for Obama | September 15, 2008 3:27 PM

Christians for Obama:

You didn't answer my question -- no big surprise though -- I truly put country first (born and unborn), hence, I'm voting for McCain-Palin.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 3:26 PM

Palin already did freeze up. I mean did any of you see the interview with "charlie". She is a complete idiot. She didn't know how to intelligently respond to any of his questions. Just had a few basic concepts and tried to answer every questions with vague "ideas." If you seriously want to pick this idiot to be one elderly cancer ridden heartbeat away from the president, then go ahead. If this country wants to make another huge mistake then I guess it's three strikes and we are out. We will deserve what we get and we won't deserve to a super power any more. Give it to china, all but one of their top rulers are engineers and the he is a geologist. Wow crazy thought! Intelligent people running your country? What comunists.

Posted by: Jill | September 15, 2008 3:25 PM

Actually I am serious. Obama's inability to effectively communicate with people of his own culture and language is a serious problem. Add to the fact that he will be dealing with leaders who do not share this culture or language and we could easily have a real disaster on our hands.


This is easily one of the most ignorant statements anyone has ever made in here.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 3:24 PM

Posted by: James | September 15, 2008 3:16 PM

unfortunately james, backing up your argument with an article that has been proven false from the new york times, is not valid.

but it appears to be, so it convinces some, whereas republicans are consistently urging people to do their own research.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 3:24 PM

This Christian is voting for Obama and praying for an Obama victory. If you want to vote for someone else, so be it. If you want to pray for someone else to win, so be it. Do so at our collective peril. I truly put country first, hence, I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by: Christians for Obama | September 15, 2008 3:24 PM

Actually I am serious. Obama's inability to effectively communicate with people of his own culture and language is a serious problem. Add to the fact that he will be dealing with leaders who do not share this culture or language and we could easily have a real disaster on our hands.

Not to worry. If Obama is elected, the federal government is going to invite the top 100 leaders in the world to camp David for a 2 week course in "How To Speak Ebonics To Brothers In Office".

It would be the best thing for world peace for all these people to understand all that South Side Chicago ghettospeak that we know Barry and Michelle speak.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 3:21 PM

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 3:15 PM

wrong aengil, the democratic party's official webpage had an article minutes after obama's speech with teh headline OBAMA CALLS PALIN A PIG.

secondly, obamas full context spoke of an "old fish" and "8 years" direct references to mccains age and the republicans term in presidential power. this suggests that he was veiling insults, to go from that to palin being called a pig is no stretch at all.

veiled insults disappoint me the most because they wont even stand by what is being said. they can hide from the public scrutiny by claiming it was innocent.

however, mccain has not once used the phrase "a spade is a spade" or "pot calling the kettle black" for very valid reasons. despite the fact that it would not only apply to obama but would be a great slogan to illuminate his constant hiding of the facts against him.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 3:21 PM

Christians for Obama:

You agree that TRUE Christians can pray for McCain-Palin victory too, right?

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 3:20 PM

Anyone who is still blathering on about the lipstick on a pig comment either (1) does not know that McCain himself is on video or tape recording at least four times saying the same thing, or (2) hates this country so much that they would continue to push this non-issue before they address the actual problems facing the United States. I'm going for No. 2. These are shameless republicans trying their level best to turn this campaign into a culture war instead of have it be about the issues. This country can't survive one more second of Bush policies, let alone four more years. Vote for McCain/Palin at our collective peril.

Posted by: Christians for Obama | September 15, 2008 3:18 PM

I am not voting for either, as I am a Libertarian; however, I cannot help but note that the people who speak up on behalf of the Democrats generally utilize rational arguments backed up by facts that can be checked, and often link to citations, whereas the Republicans on this site appear to resort to name calling as though that were somehow refutation or argumentation. It is reminiscent of the Monty Python bit about an Argument, except that the neocons have confused the room with Abuse.

What is interesting is that the Obama campaign should boil down to the simple question asked by Reagan in 1980 of the voters. Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? If you are, vote for McCain, if not then vote for us. The Democrats are letting the dialogue get hijacked into everything but that simple question. The Republicans want to make this race about anything except what matters

Posted by: James | September 15, 2008 3:16 PM

The only thing neccesarry for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing!

Posted by: Jack | September 15, 2008 3:11 PM

one of my personal favorite quotes, one i apply to obama all of the time.

when relating to his record as a community organizer.

when relating to his record in the senate.

when relating to his accomplishments garnered through his harvard education.

he seems like a good man....when is he gonna do something?

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 3:16 PM

James L.: " If Obama actually didn't mean the comment to be taken in the way that a large number of Americans (including many in his audience) understood it, how in the world is he ever going to be able to effectively communicate with foreign leaders ...?"

1) Jake Tapper from ABC was in that audience, and wrote: "neither I nor any of my colleagues there spoke to anyone who thought Obama was calling her a pig."

2) He didn't actually mention Palin at all, either directly or indirectly. The ONLY basis you have for thinking he called her a pig is that Palin used the word 'lipstick', and the expression Obama used (in the same sort of context that he and others including McCain have used it) has the word 'lipstick' in it near the word 'pig'. That's it, that's all you've got. It's hardly convincing is it? So if you're *sure* he called her a pig, you're *choosing* to be sure... and I have to wonder why.

3) As far as talking to foreign leaders goes, even if you assume Obama would use expressions like that in that kind of conversation (which I would submit is unlikely), foreign leaders are not typically so dumb as to think Obama was insulting them just because he uses an expression with a word in it that they used recently.

Posted by: Aengil | September 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Our country spits in the face of its citizens and those same people will ask for more. Reading thru these comments will show that this country is anything but united, anything but intelligent, anything but patriotic. Our country is disintergrating and we squabble with each other instead taking back our country and our government. That is no surprise considering how apathetic and lazy we as a nation have become. Sit back and vote based on who you think you can relate to. Unless we wake up, our own citizens will be our undoing.

Posted by: everfade | September 15, 2008 3:15 PM

A vote for the McCain/Palin ticket and the possibility of the McCain/Palin ticket winning will signal the end of this country. Period. Anyone who's willing to take that chance will get what they deserve. Sadly, the rest of us will have to pay for their ignorance. Let's pray for an Obama victory.

Posted by: Christians for Obama. | September 15, 2008 3:14 PM

Posted by: James L. | September 15, 2008 3:04 PM

James,

Which culture are you talking about? Hula dancing enthusiasts?

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 3:12 PM

Did I see someone post saying that Obama's lipstick comment meant he would inadvertantly offend a foriegn diplomat with his humor? Are serious? George Bush (and McCain could be worse) is the king of poor diplomatic relations. Get a life.

And the lipstick issue is so lame. It is a perfect example, along with this article, of why the newsmedia is populated by self promoting scum. The sad part of it is that so few "journalists" are willing to stand up and say enough is enough. We are not in high school and this isn't a popularity contest. It is the election of the president.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket and the media is going to hand this to McCain and that crackpot lipstick wearing pig Palin because they want it to stay close for ratings. That is the only reason this election is even still a contest: RATINGS.

The only thing neccesarry for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing!

Posted by: Jack | September 15, 2008 3:11 PM

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:59 PM

i disagree on assuming, its the mantle of the republican party. assume a politician is a politician until they prove you wrong. make them impress you by breaking a mould.

people arent picking on biden because not one person is voting for biden.

he was a huge mistake, everyone knows it, and to avoid talking about it seems to work positively for both sides, because frankly, republicans face that the election isnt about the vp.

as for the bs, although i dont agree that its major for the most part. i think its clear to KNOW about the mudslinging, simply to understand how people react to others.

im a huge poker fan, and its kinda like watching a person make a bluff that you know is a bluff. it tells you more about the person than it does about the cards, because you already have the "nut" (the best hand).

the only reason i assumed you might be voting biden obama, is you seemed to list more rumors from his side than mccains, thats generally a sign of how a person only chooses to learn what they want to learn.

but back to assuming, i think thats teh real difference between demos and repos. repos come about a situation looking for someone to impress them with a new way of thinking. demos tend to look for someone who they find likable. most likely why kerry lost despite a reasonable amount of republicans voting for him over bush.

including me. :P

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 3:10 PM

"...

I want to see all these idiot in here wonder just what the fack has happened after she totally freezes up and and does some serious damage in not having a clue as to wht to do. Even after she consults with Todd.

And then I will be sitting back smugly and sayin "Are you happy now???"

I think it will be fun."


I have wanted to send all of the Obama supporters to a alternate reality in which Obama won the election for the same exact reasons. I haven't figured out how long for though, 4 years would definitely be cruel and unusual punishment.

Posted by: Dan-O-Dan | September 15, 2008 3:08 PM

I thought McCain was the pig and Palin was the lipstick ???

Posted by: anonymous2 | September 15, 2008 3:05 PM

"James L. you cnnot be serious?"

Actually I am serious. Obama's inability to effectively communicate with people of his own culture and language is a serious problem. Add to the fact that he will be dealing with leaders who do not share this culture or language and we could easily have a real disaster on our hands.

Also, I find it interesting that you try to compare your presidential candidate with the Republicans' vice presidential candidate. Even by doing this, Obama still comes up short.

Posted by: James L. | September 15, 2008 3:04 PM

Posted by: Bush + McCain = "W"orthless | September 15, 2008 2:51 PM

you are showing your ignorance, the mortgage crisis was started in the Clinton administration when it was suggested that "housing is the way of the future".

this is that future, and who made the profits? lets see whose pockets are being lined.................

http://patterico.com/2008/09/15/obama-friendly-lehman-bros-to-file-chapter-11-bankruptcy/

isnt that interesting?

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 3:02 PM

James L:

Great point.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 3:00 PM

I have decided to vote straight republican ticket.

I want McCain/Palin to take control. I really want to see Palin have to step in and run the country.

I want to see all these idiot in here wonder just what the fack has happened after she totally freezes up and and does some serious damage in not having a clue as to wht to do. Even after she consults with Todd.

And then I will be sitting back smugly and sayin "Are you happy now???"

I think it will be fun.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 3:00 PM

Audacious is a favorite Obama word and with good reason. Anyone with as little experience as he has to even consider running for the Presidency of the US can be called audacious.

Posted by: Jeremy | September 15, 2008 3:00 PM

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:34 PM

I do actually plan on voting for Obama/Biden.
But one should never assume.

I just find it funny that since I want to have educated discussions about real issues, I'm the oddball (along with a couple of other oddballs on this page).

Maybe it is a grand conspiracy...have a lousy public education system, and an uneducated electorate, so you can scare them into voting for you. It worked for G W Bush, why can't it work for McCain?

BTW, I heard that Barack "Muslim Sounding Name" Obama has regular conference calls with Osama Bin Laden, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They trade recipes and talk about how the white, jewish, media elite keeps them down, while smoking bowls and licking poppies straight from the plant. I also heard that Obama is gay, and he runs around at night secretly giving women abortions when they aren't looking. And he doesn't own a gun...but his secret service agents do, does that count?

Oh, and I also heard that McCain gets regular blood transfusions from blood cloned from President Reagan to keep him alive. But no worries, Palin is kinda cute, so she will make a great President.

And why isn't anyone slinging mud at Biden? Homie is without a brain-to-mouth filter...I think it is caused by that awful comb-over. Come over to the bald side Joe! We could use a better spokesperson (James Carville looks like an alien).

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:59 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 15, 2008 2:57 PM

Come on, Mr. Kurtz! Did you really write this piece? Do you really equate the lies and distortions of the McCain campaign with communications from the Obama campaign? Do you really believe that McCain's familiarity with internet technology has to do with repetitive motion issues? Are you really criticising the font used by this ad as an intentional distortion?

Could you folks at the Post do some real reporting, which - I know - might be a tad bit confrontational if done "old school", rather that sitting at a keyboard and blogging? Could we dig at the truth of an issue rather than bending over backwards to be "balanced"? Have we finally reached a plateau where liars can't be called out?

Posted by: LincolnX | September 15, 2008 2:56 PM

James L. you cnnot be serious?

You want to put Palin into office who has never met a foreign leader but is qualified because she can see Russia from a high bluff in Alaska?

You think anyone qualified to be a foreign leader has the time to read the absurd garbage you folks perpetrate in here and believe that they make world decisions based on the logic of your bogus lipstick claims?

Your view of how the world works is rather naieve and simplistic. Similar to Palin's.

We have an enormous national debt, two wars going on, massive unemployment, health care in crisis, economy is sick, the American dollar is in the toilet and we are borrowing money from China to pay our bills.

And all you idiots think that if we resolve the truth over the lipstick issue that it will be the key to magically resolving all our problems????

I think all of you should run for President. You folks are wasting your time as NASA rocket scientists or Mayo Clinic brain surgeons.

With all you incisive awareness of the lipstick issue you folks need to put America First, quit your day jobs and run for President.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:56 PM

Obama knows that his campaign is far from honorable, so he must project his own shortcomings on others.

Posted by: Obama = Pelosi | September 15, 2008 2:55 PM

If McCain wins the 2008 Presidential Election, Americans better hope and pray that the fine print found on every glossy mutual fund brochure applies. Because another four years of Bushism in the form of John McCain could make the Great Depression sound like the good old days:

"In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer, people briefed on the deals said. The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=1&ref=worldbusiness&oref=slogin


Looking back at the vast economic wreckage brought on by "conservative" policies provides a chilling picture for a future under the thumb of John McCain and his merry band of industry lobbyists. It's frightening to contemplate where we'd be, right now, if these bozos had succeeded in 'privatizing' social security, as in throwing it and the future of millions of retiring Americans who rely on it into the same snapping jaws that brought us this latest financial pile of crap.


The nation has learned at great, tragic cost that "conservatives" can't be trusted to prevent terrorist attacks, bring the top Al-qaeda kingpin to justice, wisely initiate and manage foreign wars, or control spending. Now, with the benefit of empirical hindsight, perhaps it's time to publicly recognize what everyone now knows: "conservatism" doesn't work at home, either.

Posted by: Bush + McCain = "W"orthless | September 15, 2008 2:51 PM

Nebraska has the richest man in the world... And the sad thing really boils down to the fact that everyone has joined their "team" and are fighting against each other for no reason! Republicans: McCain is running a sleazy campaign. How can you not admit it? Its like a 3 year old with orange cheese all over their face arguing that they didn't eat the cheetos. Obabma has brought in a little sleaze now as well because he has to because you idiots buy into it so much that it is the only way to get media attention! Jesus, this is not a game of dodgeball, it is an election for president. Lets focus on real issues, force these candidates to provide factual information on their policies and also stop letting them get away with sleazy tactics to "sucker" people to join their "team". There shouldn't be any teams, this is America, we are one big team. We are ALL on the same side and all want the same things. So stop arguing about who is being mean, or who is more "likable" or who isn't exactly being truthful with this one unimportant comment they made. WHO CARES? Who is gonna help fix the economy FOR REAL, NOT JUST SAYING THEY WILL? Who is going to fix education and HOW? Who will fix our national security and HOW? Lets make these candidates talk more about the HOW then the WHAT, because I'm sick of hearing empty speeches full of nothing but empty box promises with no substance to back them up.

Posted by: Nick | September 15, 2008 2:51 PM

Posted by: Kay | September 15, 2008 2:38 PM

the "image" of this country, is not defined by the "image" of a young black man. its defined by how we react to issues.

one reason the world doesn't like bush is because he has been so firm on his stances. this has kept (at least for the last 8 years) certain nuclear powers from being realized against the united states.

however, recall some of our more "Worldly likeable" candidates, like jimmy carter, and some of the horrible things that nations did under his presidency knowing he would not stand up against anything.

to be liked is fun, but its not productive, mccain will be both strong and reasonable (in comparison to bush). obama will be overly reasonable and overly weak.

with north korea restarting its nuclear programs, and russia starting to invade georgia, do we really need a president countries will beleive they can push over?

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:51 PM

Obama has integrity and insight, (and dare I say it? intelligence). If McCain, is starting to sound or do better, it is because he is taking soundbites from Obama's positions and policy proposals -- and calling them his own. (Try reading "The Audacity of Hope" by Barach Obama.)

Once a maverick, McCain has now been corraled by the Bush/Cheney herd and branded "more of the same".

It's not just the economy, or the war, or education, it's just about everything that has been happening to dim the "torch of liberty" and beacon of opportunity in the United States of America over the last eight years.

It is time for that pendulum to swing, before it breaks off and takes with it all
of the promise that is America.


Posted by: alexashcom | September 15, 2008 2:49 PM

Negative or Positive, this commercial rings the truth. The entire McCain run is a sham propped up by his war record of being a prisoner.

It’s funny how things change, back in ‘04 the GOP couldn’t yell loud enough to mock and minimize the heroics of John Kerry service in Vietnam. Now in ‘08 MC Cain’s service record is supposed to be a cornerstone in qualifying experience for the office of the President of the United States. The fact of his finishing at the bottom of the class at the academy totally marks the lack of experience he brings in his bid to be the chief executive.

Mr. McCain you are no Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Posted by: davo77 | September 15, 2008 2:47 PM

Palin has had sex with a caribou. I know you don't believe it. But it's true. And she will deny it which makes her a liar and a fornicator. Very much less than honorable.

How can we vote for her in light of this fact?

It is totally true I tell you. I believe it so much that you cannot convince me otherwise.

And I am going to repeat it in here every day. Again and again until it becomes clear to everyone that it relly did happen.

It happened folks. Admit it. It is true!!!

Posted by: God has a plan for all of us | September 15, 2008 2:46 PM

They have some great thinkers out there in Nebraska, eh, Dale?

Posted by: Goebbels | September 15, 2008 2:40 PM

washington, state, not dc.

voted for kerry last election.

but nice try pegging me as a blind follower.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:46 PM

Some McCain supporters cling to an old worn out image of McCain.

Get over that.
He is not a hero.
He is a sham of the man who ran in 2000

He has dishonored that man with lies and distortions and caving to the worst unconstitiutional impulses of the right.

Posted by: M Tobias | September 15, 2008 2:44 PM

whats the point of facing the issues if a candidate is just going to lie on their stance? or take money from lobbyists wives and say they aren't taking money from lobbyists?

ANSWER: There's no point. That's why the majority of eligible Americans NO LONGER VOTE FOR PRESIDENT... ANY PRESIDENT.

Posted by: answer man | September 15, 2008 2:29 PM

that is such a disappointing reality :(

or as al gore might say "inconvenient truth".

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:43 PM

"This is amusing. Look at all the whining you folks have done about the phony lipstick issue.

Now we are talking about some serious whining. Yes???

Not only it is it major, but totally irrelevant."

Anomynous,

Actually the lipstick issue is quite important. If Obama actually didn't mean the comment to be taken in the way that a large number of Americans (including many in his audience) understood it, how in the world is he ever going to be able to effectively communicate with foreign leaders who do not share his culture or language?

If you think America is the laughing stock of the world now, just wait to Obama tries his sense of humor with the rest of the world.

Posted by: James L | September 15, 2008 2:43 PM

Anonymous:

After Gov. Palin's ad lib, do you think that McCain will use that line again? OTOH if Obama uses the line after all this dust-up, will you finally agree he's referring to Palin?

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 2:42 PM

McCain said Hillary's economic plan is lipstick on a pig.

Therefore....McCain, our man of honor, has called Hillary a pig.

I think this is outrageous. I thin it's a reflection of his real character. Everyone should look at McCain on the YouTube video.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:40 PM

They have some great thinkers out there in Nebraska, eh, Dale?

Posted by: Goebbels | September 15, 2008 2:40 PM

Are Americans really looking at the issues at stake or they are just looking at the people running for President - a young black man and an old white man with white hair? Bush made America a laughing stock outside the US and McCain will not redeem the image America once had. Not even close. I know that does not bother most Americans. But it is very essential to the US that others respect America.

Does integrity count in this election at all? Why vote for someone who would lie and continue repeating the same lie? McCain did that to Romnie during the primaries. And he is doing it again to Obama. Folks, not all POWs are honorable. Wake UP America! That Bridge to Nowhere story is still being replayed by McCain and Palin even though it has been disproved several times. He lies in his commercials with impunity. Is that DEMOCRACY? Shouldn't there be a Commission to verify such ads before they are run to check their veracity? Don't you sue people when they defame or slander you? So why allow slander and defamation in political commercials? Why should people's choices be based on FALSEHOOD? Was that what our forefathers shed their blood for? People are dying for what we have in this country - the right to vote. Is that how we are using what has been given to us by our forefathers? Don't the issues matter any more America? Does the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the Constitution apply to ALL Americans or just the few who have the means to lie to us enough for us to keep them in power? And then they'd do it to us again after 4 years.

McCain has flip-floped on so many occasions to suit his audiences and yet he said on The View recently that his position is still the same. He is still the same guy, as if we can't remember what he said and did in the past and compare with what he is saying now.

If you set fire to your house when you shouldn't have, and your children are KILLED and many MAIMED for life, and you somehow managed to keep the fire under control. Do you boast about how you managed to put the fire under control? What about those who have been killed and maimed through your misjudgment? So why is McCain so proud about the SURGE?

WAKE UP AMERICA! You are going to elect another George Bush and the only people who will benefit are the multimillionaire lobbyists who resurrected his campaign before New Hampshire and are running his campaign now. And, of course, the Bill Mahers and the David Lettermans. And we will all watch China pass us by. Think a little.

Posted by: Kay | September 15, 2008 2:38 PM

Will someone give Obama a diaper change so he stops whining? Then maybe we can explain to him exactly how his campaign has been less than honorable


This is amusing. Look at all the whining you folks have done about the phony lipstick issue.

Now we are talking about some serious whining. Yes???

Not only it is it major, but totally irrelevant.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:38 PM

Whats more honorable?
Call youropponent a pig and lie about it when you get caught.May be an honorable thing in Chicago ghettos.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:37 PM

Obama lecturing McCain about honor?
Thats funny.
McCain life itself is a lesson about honor where as Obama's,if his latest trick of referring his opponents who happens to be women as pigs is anything but it.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:35 PM

Jeremy do you live in a parallel universe?

How is it everything you seem to understand is ass backwards??

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:35 PM

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:29 PM

i wasnt sure either way, but i wanted to simply reinforce that he pretty much looses ground on every front.

i mean come on, mccain has him beat on the slavery arguement....thats an accomplishment.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:34 PM

So much sarcasm that no one has posted a valid point YET.

Posted by: ryan.vanterpool | September 15, 2008 2:33 PM

The McCain campaign is running scared and with good reason. Even though McCain is even in some polls, Obama has an on-the-ground registration drive in all the borderline states that scares the living bejeebus out of McCain's camp. Now, McCain must stand and rely on his non-existent background. Anyone in his position would be nervous too.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:26 PM

YA its called ACORN the "non-partisan" group responsible for the voting problems in both ohio and florida in the past elections.

“There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications,” said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office. “And it appears to be widespread.”

ya, thats what obama is doing. encouraging fraudulent voting techniques to win.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:32 PM

Will someone give Obama a diaper change so he stops whining? Then maybe we can explain to him exactly how his campaign has been less than honorable.

Posted by: Dan-O-Dan | September 15, 2008 2:32 PM

Dishonesty is Dishonorable
Honor through Truth.

Posted by: M Tobias | September 15, 2008 2:32 PM

Thats a nice way to whine about negative ads-to put out a negative ad questioning your opponents honor-honor of a war hero that sacrificed for his country that is! Way to go Obama.We are all gonna vote for the change you will bring in!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:30 PM

dale,

That is exactly the discussion/debate we should be having.

Unfortunately we aren't.

And it is funny that a few people on this board think that I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:29 PM

whats the point of facing the issues if a candidate is just going to lie on their stance? or take money from lobbyists wives and say they aren't taking money from lobbyists?

ANSWER: There's no point. That's why the majority of eligible Americans NO LONGER VOTE FOR PRESIDENT... ANY PRESIDENT.

Posted by: answer man | September 15, 2008 2:29 PM

Didn't Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda have a quote that said if you repeat a lie often enough it eventually becomes true?

Now for the record, before you all fly off with indignation, I am not callig McCain a Nazi or Palin a pig.

But after McCain referred to Hillary's economic plan last spring as lipstick on a pig, no one in the world became outraged and went berserk claiming he was calling Hillary a pig. No one!

And the fact is, that impartial observor's to this strange election have all agreed that Obama's reference was just another common use of the analogy and had absolutely nothing else implied.

So if ya'll want to rant and rave and bemoan how terrible it is that Obama can cleverly and subtlely refer to your wonderful Sarah as a pig, then go for it.

It's amusing. It's interesting. It's a bit over the top. It's a lot of things.

But in response to Joseph Goebbels, you can repeat your outrage as many times as you want. But doing so won't make it true.

Maybe in your own mind. But that is what makes it all so amusing.

Laughing my ass off.....and scaring my cat and dog.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:28 PM

Some_Perspective:

And, like I said, if you'd rather maintain it is a "non issue" instead of just answering two simple questions, go right ahead.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 2:27 PM

McCain is sounding more and more like Nixon. With Nixon you could often take what he said, invert it 180 degrees and that would be the truth.

McCain has taken the low road ever since before the Republican Convention. Personal attacks on Obama, making non-connnections sound like fact. Even Karl Rove finds it offensive.

And to think the McCain campaign once discussed 'inexperience' and then select Palin - which is like bin Laden calling someone a terrorist(as a negative of course).

The McCain campaign is running scared and with good reason. Even though McCain is even in some polls, Obama has an on-the-ground registration drive in all the borderline states that scares the living bejeebus out of McCain's camp. Now, McCain must stand and rely on his non-existent background. Anyone in his position would be nervous too.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:26 PM

Paige Palmer:

I answered that question on the other thread you posted to.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 2:26 PM

Posted by: another McCain Supporter (from Nebraska) | September 15, 2008 2:18 PM

im not knocking thier vote, i mean, despite certain ignorances we all have we all have a vote.

if a democrat chose to vote for mccain, i would support thier vote too, because even ignorant people can make good decisions. but im not about to claim that a person isnt ignorant when they choose to make such a claim as this.

besides, truth is truth, you cant get around it, and i beleive the american people are proving that this election. no matter how loudly obama claims lie, people arent buying it. and thier seeing him for the racist he is.

if obama wants to make this race about slavery, through joe biden saying "vote for him because hes black" or whoopie goldberg asking "should i be afraid of being a slave again". then im simply stating that we win on that stage too.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:24 PM

JakeD,

Like I said, it is a non-issue.


Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:24 PM

Jeremy:

Or, more recently, Bill "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations with The Woman, Ms. Lewinsky" Clinton?

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 2:24 PM

obama called palin a pig, get over it, its fact.

Palin IS a pig and she DOES wear lipstick!

Posted by: Fact checker | September 15, 2008 2:21 PM

Obama is sounding more and more like Nixon. With Nixon you could often take what he said, invert it 180 degrees and that would be the truth.

Obama has taken the low road ever since the Republican Convention. Personal attacks on Governor Palin. Even offensive slurs like the pig-lipstick comment.

And now the Obama campaign is discussing 'inexperience' which is like bin Laden calling someone a terrorist(as a negative of course).

The Obama campaign is running scared and with good reason. Obama has gone very far on gas vapors. Now, he must stand and rely on his non-existent background. Anyone in his position would be nervous too.

Posted by: Jeremy | September 15, 2008 2:19 PM

I know but at least I care. Some of the things that people are writing are things meant for grade school. Oh well, I guess I AM the exception; however, but WE still have to tolerate and live with whomever becomes president!

-------------------------------
Sorry, guy but you ARE the exception!

Posted by: ryan.vanterpool | September 15, 2008 2:19 PM

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:09 PM

whats the point of facing the issues if a candidate is just going to lie on their stance? or take money from lobbyists wives and say they aren't taking money from lobbyists?

mccain has made his policy issues clear early on, he even attempted to make sure that the public would focus the election instead of the campaigns by offering town hall meetings.

obama chose once again to honor his pride first. because obama has a distinct obvious disadvantage in town hall meetings, he chose to avoid the issues that THE PEOPLE would bring up.

obama consistantly stands on issues that lower the decision making responsibility of a president. he wont accept lobbyists when they can be lobbying for positive growth for the united states.

in a book released by a former coworker of obama's, he points out that obama outright lies in his book on his experience after being a community organizer.

mccain has a history of voting, obama doesnt, palin has a more convincing voter history than obama.

if you really want to get down to the issues of the campaign, obama has no were to go.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:19 PM

i for one actually appreciate the white supremists support. Their votes are probably significant enough to put John McCain/Sarah Palin over the top and win the election. So don't knock you allies, remember that they ARE allies. See below-


White supremists for MCCAIN!
We need change to insure that a colored person will think twice next time before they run for high office.

Posted by: mccain all the way to the white house!!!!!!!!!!!! | September 15, 2008 2:03 PM

you do realize that it was a physically disabled old white republican male whose maverick policies freed the slaves in the first place?

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:07 PM

Posted by: another McCain Supporter (from Nebraska) | September 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Some_Perspective:

If you don't want to answer my questions, no skin off my nose.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 2:17 PM

lol sooo true

Posted by: boruch yona loriner | September 15, 2008 2:17 PM

obama called palin a pig, get over it, its fact.


what you should be worrying about supporters of obama, is what is true and what is false.

So we should accept anything McCain says that is false because it's true but instead be only concerned about what Obama says that is true because it is false??

Dude what an interesting perspective you have on this whole thing. Not very rational but amusing none the less.

Cheney: lipstick on a pig. Good!
McCain: lipstick on a pig. Good!
Obama: lipstick on a pig. Bad, Shame on you. You aren't supposed to say things like that. They might be mistaken and taken the wrong way. Shame!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:16 PM

Sorry, guy but you ARE the exception!
--------------------------------------

Whew, there are some racial things on here. Is anyone taking these elections seriously or are they really just voting for their favorite cadidate. This is our highest position in our country and people aren't taking it seriously. At least I am!

Posted by: ryan.vanterpool | September 15, 2008 2:13 PM

Posted by: Benny | September 15, 2008 2:15 PM

Whew, there are some racial things on here. Is anyone taking these elections seriously or are they really just voting for their favorite cadidate. This is our highest position in our country and people aren't taking it seriously. At least I am!

Posted by: ryan.vanterpool | September 15, 2008 2:13 PM

dale, what on earth are you smoking???

And do you have enough to share?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:10 PM

JakeD

It's a non-issue.

Issues:
- Unemployment
- War
- Health Care
- Recession
- The value of the dollar
- Energy

Non-issues
- Pregnant teenage daughters
- Crazy pastors
- Babies with down syndrome
- Community organizing
- Opinionated wives
- everything else this campaign has been about.

Both camps are acting like middle-school cliques. We are electing a team to the highest office in the world, not an 8th grade class president.


Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 2:09 PM

Why in the world would any sane person want another 8 years of the same thing - in fact worse than the last 8 years?

Another Republican and there will be another war. You can bet on it. Not to mention recession to the point of major depression domestically and globally.

It's easy when you are rich to talk like you are one of the middle class. McCain isn't and never has been, he's an out of touch elitist that will never understand hard working American families.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38Ug_ugzXs&feature=related

Posted by: Paige Palmer | September 15, 2008 2:09 PM

I don't believe that Gov. Palin "lied" about the Bridge to Nowhere. Is that my "ignorance" or "prejudice"?


If you believe up is down or down is up why should we waste any or our time explaining it to you?

Believe what you want to believe. You have that right.

Is this a great country or what!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:08 PM

Veteran:

McCain's mother is still alive though. Also, McCain's grandfather died from the stress of WWII, the day after he returned hom. McCain's father dies on a military aircraft en route from Europe.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 2:07 PM

White supremists for MCCAIN!
We need change to insure that a colored person will think twice next time before they run for high office.

Posted by: mccain all the way to the white house!!!!!!!!!!!! | September 15, 2008 2:03 PM

you do realize that it was a physically disabled old white republican male whose maverick policies freed the slaves in the first place?

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:07 PM

More and more and more Republican manipulations!

Yes, Sarah Palin is a diversion to distract us from what has actually be going on these past eight years. Those of you who are even considering her, consider this:

If you would have asked her six months ago if she would be nominated for the position of VP of the US, she would have laughed at you. How ready can she possibly be?

Now the GOP are continually grooming her so that she seems ready enough to you. She has five kids - one just headed off to Iraq (how distracting is that?, one is pregnant (how distracting is that?), the same one is making wedding plans (oh my, how distracting is that!), another one is a young infant (how distracting is that), and that same infant has a disability (how distracting is that)?

She is being used to manipulate us, and it's time to wake up! Consider the following article:

This is a very interesting read concerning McCain's choice of Palin and Republican manipulation from an unusual and surprising religious perspective. I highly recommend checking it out:

http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/McCain-Hijacks-Christianity-Via-Palin.240929

Posted by: LaRae | September 15, 2008 2:05 PM

McSurge has been approached by the Rovian dark Side of the republican party. They convinced him they would give him immortality with a presidential win.

All he had to do was give up his soul and relinquish all his honor. As those attributes are anathema to Rovians.

And the poor bastard said at this point in my life, what else is there.

He is like Vincent Price movie selling his soul to the Devil in return for immortality.

McCain was an honorable man. He was a maverick. But now he is a marionette of the GOP Dark Side. And his evilness will now require him to invite the Rovian's back into the White House should he be elected. And that is scary.

If you look closely into McCain's eyes you can see the image of Karl Rove.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 2:04 PM

John:

I don't believe that Gov. Palin "lied" about the Bridge to Nowhere. Is that my "ignorance" or "prejudice"?

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 2:04 PM

obama called palin a pig, get over it, its fact.

the full context of teh quote also included (old fish = mccain) and (8 years = bush/republican party).

the fact that he made fun of someone should not be something you should be worried about.

what you should be worrying about supporters of obama, is what is true and what is false.

OBAMA INTENDS TO CONTINUE THE EXACT SAME POLICES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

the only difference is an increase in taxes on the upper class.

he then intends to give universal health care and increased spending into Medicare.

now go into your garage, find a funnel used for getting oil into a lawnmower or whatever you might use it for. pack the bottom of the funnel with newspaper fairly loosely, then begin pouring water into it until its nearly full.

this is where we are with the bush administration. now lets compare individual economic policies.

MCCAIN: poke a small straw or stick up through the bottom in an attempt to move the newspaper out of the clogged path, slowly, not quickly, into a small dish allow it to bleed out slowly before putting more water in.

OBAMA: add more newspaper while its filled with water, and at the same time keep filling it with more water, pack the newspaper tightly, watch what happens.

you know its funny that obama and mccain both agree that regulation is a main reason that the housing market fell, but mccain is the only one with a policy to attack the faulty regulation.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 2:04 PM

White supremists for MCCAIN!
We need change to insure that a colored person will think twice next time before they run for high office.

Posted by: mccain all the way to the white house!!!!!!!!!!!! | September 15, 2008 2:03 PM

Obama is a fraud. Cheap talk in an expensive suit.

Speaking liars. When will Obama tell the truth about his family and his heritage. When will he come clean about his past use of hard drugs and any arrests that may have resulted from his drug use?

Posted by: Dickie Wilbur | September 15, 2008 2:02 PM

Old man McCain is a "dead man walking," his father died at 70, and his grandfather at 63. He has had four bouts with melanoma in the last few years, and his physicians have refused to release his comprehensive medical records which include the military ones that probably indicate post traumatic stress syndrome from his POW days. His forgetfulness, anger, impatience, and irrational lack of judgment all point to this type of disorder.

His choice, in this light, of the totally unqualified moose killer Palin is cynical in the extreme. It shows callous disregard of what is needed to get our country out of its problems at home and abroad.

The McCain/Palin offer no solutions or ideas. They just bring us daily doses of Steve Schmidt/Karl Rove hate and smear lies.

The news media is picking up on their tactics this time- unlike 2004- and thus both McCain and Palin are attacking them.
Neither of them can stand the heat from being exposed for what they are. Liars.

When Sarah Palin ran for Governor she was kept completely under wraps. The press was not allowed anywhere near her, for good reason. She is only capable of mouthing cliches, soundbytes, and trite non sequiturs. McCain is handling her the same way in this campaign. No more interviews after the disastrous one with Charles Gibson.

We can't afford to have a vindictive small town, part time, know nothing President. Keep in mind, in the first year as Governor, she spent 300 days and nights at home- 600 miles from her office in Juneau- and charged Alaskans per diem expenses for doing it. $17,000 for meals, and $43,000 for transportation? Some reform.

Not this time.


Posted by: Veteran | September 15, 2008 2:02 PM

RIP the Soul of John McCain (Republican Rhapsody):

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=wlU92rN5fPc

Posted by: Charles M. | September 15, 2008 2:01 PM

McCain 2008 is clearly a dishonorable campaign and that is the way the right wing wants it. They hate Obama and after they pulled the same thing on McCain in 2000, they convinced him that this is what he has to do to win. Obama is undoubtedly not sexist and there is little question that women will play a prominent role in his administration, as will old, young, black, white, yellow, red, Republican, Democrat and Independent. He is trying to return this country to what it once was. The people I know that pay attention to the campaigns are overwhelmingly Obama, the ones that don't favor McCain. When asked why, the most common answer is still "He is a Muslim". Obviously our education system is failing when peolple pay more attention to the National Enquirer and Fox News, the fool Hannity and the comedian Limbaugh. What amazes me most this year is that the McCain campaign continues to lie even after it is exposed, they just banks on the ignorance or prejudice of the electorate. Obama treats us as knowledgeable Americans and McCain treats us as imbeciles and is tied, what a sad day for us.

Posted by: John | September 15, 2008 2:01 PM

McCain will, yet again, pull out the ole "Noun, Verb, POW" card to shield himself from any criticism over this subject. But this is simply not the case. Instead, McCain suffers from PTCRHMHIOD, or Post Traumatic Can't Remember How Many Houses I Own Disorder. This horrible condition has forever altered the lives of countless Vietnam Vets after their return to the States. In fact, it is the number one cause of divorce between former POWs and their millionaire liquor-heiress wives.


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

Posted by: JennyinOhio | September 15, 2008 2:00 PM

I have been following politics for some time now and it is clear to me that I am not voting in this election or any to come in the future for clear reasons. I am neither a democrat or a republican, I am not even classified as a liberal or affiliated with any other party. I am just an average citizen looking into the pot seeing the big picture. Pay close attention, for these are only my opinions which I gladly protect the right to when signed my life to in the US military some time ago.

ONE: Being that the traditional way of campaigning has gone out the window. Back in the day, and I mean way back, people used to put out there what they want to do with the country and how to steer it towards a prosperous nation. Not many negative ads or blogs were posted about the other running candidates. Not even incriminating photos (probably not available way back when). Now we have candidates literally smearing the others reputation in order to make themselves look good. How about we let the people decide instead of being the one that forces the hand. Let the candidates show who they are without interference and let the general public (Americans) choose for themselves.

TWO: None of the candidates in this election or the past two have presented a policy change or continuum that has positive fluxes in our national productivity. People often say that "I want to make a difference and reach into every Americans home and affect change in a good way." When has that actually happend, and not from a political point of view but from an actual American family living in a suburb that has an average income of 60,000 a year job or less!?! Why can't we have a candidate who literally see's our country's developement from the bottom up? Why is it that when candidates say they will affect change it is never done on the low tiers? They are the ones most affected by taxes, policy changes and new programs that add or cancel some or all of their benefits?! I guess the proverbial term of "the rich get richer," really does exists in America. But that is not what America is all about, am I right

THREE: This is just my opinion as I am entitled to it. It is clear to me though that from an average citizens point of view that there is no candidate that really sees what happens at the low tiers of society. If so then there would be more policy changes to help those out. And not from an evangelical point of view. We all know that politics and religion do not go hand in hand with each other. It is like the military chain of command. Delegate down to the next line supervisor or officer in charge until it reaches someone who doesn't really know whats going on and the problem gets lost in translation.

Oh well, one of these days there will be someone that has the guts to speak from a stand point that includes ALL Americans from homeless to rich and set forth policies that everyone can benefit from. Until then, lets see where our country goes from here!

Mahalo for taking the time to read my comment!

Posted by: ryan.vanterpool | September 15, 2008 2:00 PM

lol:

That's not all they did in kindergarten, but why don't you think teaching children how to report, identify, and resist sex-abusers = Sex-Education?

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 1:59 PM

WHOEVER WROTE THE FOLLOWING MUST NOT LIVE IN THE USA. EITHER THAT OR THEIR HEADS ARE IN THE CLOUDS!!!!!!!!!!

"Focus on real issues, people. Ignore the mud-slinging, on both sides"

Posted by: Plleeeeeeeeeeze | September 15, 2008 1:59 PM

It's Kool-Aid, not Cool-Aid.

But I think you should try a cup of the grape flavor. It's especially yummy!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 1:59 PM

"What I want in my president."

Matt G

Matt,

You forgot,

1. No birth control allowed

2. No choice for women

3. Creationism taught in the schools

4. Abstinence only sex education.

5. Drill, drill, drill everywhere

6. Start a war to help the economy

7. Put glasses on everyone to make them look smarter.

8. Don't answer the phone.

9. Lie about everything.

10. Put your high school friends in office.

Posted by: Sarah | September 15, 2008 1:58 PM

Some_Perpective:

After Gov. Palin's ad lib, do you think that McCain will use that line again? OTOH if Obama uses the line after all this dust-up, will you finally agree he's referring to Palin?

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 1:57 PM

Lets not forget how McCain said Obama voted to give Sex-Ed to children, when Obama ACTUALLY voted to teach children how to report, identify, and resist sex-abusers.

Lol, and anonymous calls liberals phony. McCain is the one lying about laws designed to keep our children safe from child molesters so he can win an election.

Posted by: lol | September 15, 2008 1:57 PM

John McCain made the same "lipstick on a pig" comment a few months ago when referring to health care reform.

That is a non-issue.

Forget the character debate. Obama did drugs as a teen...G W Bush is a recovering alcoholic and that didn't stop people from voting for him.

And really, why should we care what a candidate did as a teenager? Speaking of teenagers...who cares that Palin's daughter is pregnant? What does that mean to Joe Sixpack whose job just got sent to China?

Nothing.

Focus on real issues, people. Ignore the mud-slinging, on both sides. That just appeals to the lowest common denominator. It is safe to say that both parties are manipulating the truth. Any 1st year marketing major is trained to do the same.

When Karl Rove thinks the campaigns are going to far...wow.

Posted by: Some_Perpective | September 15, 2008 1:54 PM

McCain, and now Mrs. Palin, is running on lies and distorting the real issues. Look at what is happining to our financial markets now because of the Bush's economic policies. Anybody who think another Republican administration can fix our nation is as pig stupid as McCain and Mrs. Palin are with all their comments about lipstick.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 1:53 PM

Anonymous:

So if Rove told you to drink the Cool-Aid you would happily chug it down?

Posted by: Limey | September 15, 2008 1:53 PM

It seems to me that the more attention McCain/Palin get the more nasty and combative Obama gets. Obama totally screwed up by not taking Hillary as his running mate. His big ego, his immaturity and arrogance prevented him from taking the one person that could have easily put him in the White House (weather he deserved it or not is questionable) Because really What has Obama done? Nada,Nothing, Zilch, and as far as Palin goes Obama can't hold a candle to her- a community service worker verses Mayor, Governor-who are you kidding?

Posted by: mimi362 | September 15, 2008 1:52 PM

BO IS the low road. The democrats are as low as you can go - abortion, sodomy, women's lib and multiculturalism. Now the question is, is America going to stoop to their level.

Posted by: Harold Reimann | September 15, 2008 1:51 PM

Even Megyn Kelly on Fox News has had to call McCain's campaign for lying.

Fox News, Karl Rove, and dozens of conservative pundits have been forced to admit that McCain is plumbing the depths here.

But you can always find x number of anonymous commenters who really just don't care about the truth.

Posted by: drossless | September 15, 2008 1:51 PM

I think Barack Obama is being grossly unfair to Sarah Palin. She's not a pig for one thing and she wouldn't wear lipstick if she WERE a pig.

Obama needs to stop calling the other candidates animals and look in the mirror to see himself as the African chimpanzee that the rest of white America sees.

Posted by: Cindy Stone | September 15, 2008 1:50 PM


And just what would Obama know about honor?

Would honor be that time he sold out his Illinois constituents who have to live next to leaks from an Excelon plant because they are one of his major contributors?

Just what has he ever done or had to do that displayed honor? No, this is just his excuse to revert to time-honored attack ads after his phony promise of new politics, just like he picked Joe Biden after running against old Washington hacks.

Posted by: Chicago1 | September 15, 2008 1:49 PM

Sounds like Obama is the Obama Cry Baby again

Posted by: Tom Smith | September 15, 2008 1:49 PM

Never doubt the importance of small but active coalitions in helping YOUR candidate come out on top in the election.

The GRAND COALITION
evangelists-conservatives-white supremists-red necks

100% for John McCain & Sarah Palin!!!!!!!!

Posted by: McCain 08 | September 15, 2008 1:48 PM

Howard Kurtz, you are leaning over far too much in an effort to appear "fair and balanced". A lie is a lie. McCain and his campaign has been spreading a pack of lies. You don't need a Joe Klein to figure that out.

Most of the public that looks at reality - rather than on what people tell them to look at - can tell the difference been a LIE and a misstatement or exageration. McCain is spreading lies.

Posted by: bp4truth | September 15, 2008 1:45 PM

Who do you trust?

Hockey Mom? Moose Hunter? Bold Faced Liar?

Posted by: TruthWalksOnWater | September 15, 2008 1:45 PM

Obama and the DNC are now sorry for their short-sighted railroading of Hillary out of the race for President. Obama's blatant sexism - note his pat on his wife's butt whenever she's on stage, his regular use of "sweetie" and his total disregard of white women voters - "typical white women" has destroyed the democrats credibility. So - the only thing they can do - is attack a woman - Gov. Palin - to try to get back on track. Obama and the DNC are running the most sexist campaign I have ever seen in 5 decades. It is repulsive.

Posted by: HillarySupporter | September 15, 2008 1:45 PM

McSurge:

There's nothing "inconsistent" with pro-life, anti-murder, and pro-death penalty.

See, e.g. Genesis 9:6.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 1:44 PM

zukermand:

You are the one "confused" about the time line -- Gov. Palin told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks" in September of 2007 -- next canard?

Anyone else with truthful questions about that topic, please see my comments here and let me know:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/sarah_palin_and_the_bridge_to.html#comments

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 1:43 PM

McCain: "Noun, verb, and the surge."

McCain: "Falsehood, outright lie, out of touch comment, surge."

Palin: "Alaska is close to Russia, hockey mom, pitbull, lipstick, bridge to nowhere lie, pro-life, pro-death (capital punishment - gotta love the inconsistency with pro-lifers lol), Bush doctrine?"

Posted by: McSurge | September 15, 2008 1:40 PM

sOh God save us from our fellow man. He did NOT say Palin was a Pig. He said McCain's policies and program could be purceived as the pig, and she wore lipstick. Get it you can't put lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig.

Posted by: Doyle Hargaves | September 15, 2008 1:40 PM

What I want in my president.

(1) 'Press 1 for English' is immediately banned. English is the official language; speak it or wait at the border until you can.

(2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports.
We will use the 'Wal-Mart's policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.'

(3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it.

(4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens.

(5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it.


(6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade.

(7) Professional Athletes --Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life.

(8) One export will be allowed; Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil.

(9) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause.

(10) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress.

(11) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc.

God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: matt g | September 15, 2008 1:39 PM

I watched the video, and YES, Obama called Palin "pig"...
Karl Roved also agreed with me.
Posted by: Anonymous

Whoopee- Karl Rove- the truth seeker.

Anonymous, you are either another Rethuglican pathetic liar, or a complete deaf, dumb, and blind imbicile. Stop the lies. Your candidate McPain has nothing to offer our country so you must try and slime the opposition with this "lipstick" diversion. It will not work.

If you can read, here is Senator Obama's exact words on the video.

"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 the same thing something different. You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig."

Stop the lies.

Not this time.

Posted by: The truth | September 15, 2008 1:38 PM

Republicans don't seem to understand that we organize government to take care of matters that must not fail. Since some failure is inevitable, that means the executive must be someone who not only accepts failure but knows how to work around it.


Do-overs are not an option; neither is doing nothing.


Apparently, if you listen to them closely, McCain is into do-overs big time and Palin is into doing nothing. Her prescription for economic failure is for bureaucrats to sit back and watch the private sector handle it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/12/231843/400

Posted by: Fran | September 15, 2008 1:35 PM

"Obama is going down in polls like a rock. Liberal media are so in frantic that they find anything to attack McCain and Palin."

Because reporting that McCain is announcing out and out lies is just some liberal tactic... not responsible journalism.

Posted by: Here here! | September 15, 2008 1:35 PM

Nice ducking under the POW cloak of invisibility. McCain is on record as stating he has not been interested in the internet, but might considered getting involved.

How cool of you to fire up the "too wounded to type" excuse for him. I guess Cindy wouldn't spring for $99 voice recognition software like the rest of us with arm injuries use.

Objectivity, thy name is...well it isn't Howard.

Posted by: Lee | September 15, 2008 1:35 PM

Oh, let's see; Obama can make age and gender comments and that doesn't have an impact on the US? It's not newsworthy right. All the time, cases, lawyers that has gone into stopping discrimination is just meaningless?

Obama can be tied to the shadiest of characters and it's just ignored? Obama cn write about his drug days and yet that doesn't matter?

Obama's wife can open her trap and make racist remarks and that doesn't matter.

Everything Obama does is simply swept away and ignored but if he farts it makes news?

What is with people in the US voting for this guy. He is just not presidential material.

Posted by: CLM | September 15, 2008 1:35 PM

Trotting out Jesse Jackson to call Hillary Clinton a racist to voters in New Hampshire was as low as a campaign can go.

Posted by: CJW | September 15, 2008 1:34 PM

Yes, he made the pig comment. It is an analogy. It isn't like her wrote the thing. He said it in response to her referring to herself as a bulldog. So what animals ARE people allowed to use?

Nobody is ignoring it.

Posted by: Sigh | September 15, 2008 1:33 PM

McCain = Bush.

Why would any Republican find this offensive? It's the truth. You aren't voting for Palin, you are voting for McCain and he equals Bush better than 90% of the time. 10% does not equal change of any kind.

McCain = Bush.

If you like Bush, then you should love McCain. End of argument.

Posted by: McCain= Bush | September 15, 2008 1:33 PM

If Bush was a puppet of oil companies, defense contractors, and other big businesses, McCain is more of the same. All one has to do is look at the people running the McCain campaign. It's filled with the worst kind of lobbyists, and the campaign is funded with federal lobbyist and PAC money, too.


Wake up, America! The country desperately needs real change. We can't allow these powerful interests to continue running our government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpIfTDHG2U&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/14/203255/447
.

Posted by: astral99 | September 15, 2008 1:33 PM

There is nothing wrong with being happily stinking rich and utterly detached like McCain is. Nothing, that is, unless you make criticizing your political opponent as "elitist" and "out of touch" a centerpiece of your campaign. Rick Davis, speaking on behalf of his $100 million man John McCain, earlier this month offered the latest formulation of Barack Obama as an effete, aloof denizen of the upper class:

"Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand 'MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew - Black Forest Berry Honest Tea' and worry about the price of arugula."

Of course, Davis' "arugula war" is just another attempt at misdirection. After all, John McCain's $5 million threshold where "you move from middle class to rich" is just the latest episode of his enduring disconnect from the real lives of the American people.


For starters, McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.)

McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.


In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless*
That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:

Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
Ironically, the McCain campaign blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 15, 2008 1:31 PM

Obama is going down in polls like a rock. Liberal media are so in frantic that they find anything to attack McCain and Palin.
But Obama's ship is sinking so fast, just like his supporter Lehman brothers.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 1:30 PM

What is amazing to me is that people can call this the low road. 4 years ago everyone criticized Kerry for letting his opponent walk all over him and not standing up for himself when similar tactics were used. Now people will criticize because Obama DID stand up.

And no, McCain is not Bush. He is just very similar, but different enough to be bad all on his own.

Posted by: Astonished | September 15, 2008 1:29 PM

You are so right Howard--the fact that the lies McCain and friends spout are documentably false does not mean we should listen to those lefties who say so!

Let's just be quiet, elect McCain, and enjoy the fiddle music. Ummm, what's that smokey smell?

Posted by: Jackie Lee | September 15, 2008 1:28 PM

You accuse Obama's ad of only using liberal news citations, but ignored the fact that Karl Rove and Fox newscasters have criticized McCain.

You say that neutral factchecking websites have acknowledged that Obama has been stretching the truth, but ignored the fact that those same factchecking websites said that while Obama stretched the truth, McCain's outright lying.

You say that McCain can't use a computer, yet ignore the fact that he's able to use a cellphone and a blackberry, which require much greater dexterity.

It's nice to see that ONE side of the issue is being reported...

Posted by: Mar | September 15, 2008 1:28 PM

Now, it has been shown that Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere until it became an embarrassment...
Posted by: Sonja | September 15, 2008 12:38 PM
=================
Sonja, for the record, Gov Palin supported the federal funding of the "Bridge to Nowhere" long after it became an embarrassment. Amidst much controversy, the earmark was removed by congress in November of 2005. Gov Palin's gubenatorial campaign, including its stated support for that project, was waged through November of 2006!
By the way, this time line obviously makes this claim:
"I told Congress thanks, but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere"
a lie, for those who seem confused about this.

Posted by: zukermand | September 15, 2008 1:27 PM

I watched the video, and YES, Obama called Palin "pig"...
Karl Roved also agreed with me.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 1:27 PM

Evangelicals for OBAMA!
We need change to improve the poor economy caused by Bush.

Posted by: Jess | September 15, 2008 1:27 PM

Karl Rove also said Obama deliberately sniped Palin by "pig" comment, how convenient for you liberals to ignore this part and pick the other part!!!
And since you were so disgusted by Rove, why all of sudden you are so concerned about his opinion?
Once again, liberals demonstrate how phony they are.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 1:26 PM

Anonymous, find me the Obama quote where he calls Palin a pig. I think we've all seen the actual video tape by now, and it's obvious to even the brain dead that he isn't talking about Palin.

Do you feel good about yourself, repeating lies like that?

Posted by: drossless | September 15, 2008 1:24 PM

Old man McCain is a "dead man walking," his father died at 70, and his grandfather at 63. He has had four bouts with melanoma in the last few years, and his physicians have refused to release his comprehensive medical records which include the military ones that probably indicate post traumatic stress syndrome from his POW days. His forgetfulness, anger, impatience, and irrational lack of judgment all point to this type of disorder.

His choice, in this light, of the totally unqualified moose killer Palin is cynical in the extreme. It shows callous disregard of what is needed to get our country out of its problems at home and abroad.

The McCain/Palin offer no solutions or ideas. They just bring us daily doses of Steve Schmidt/Karl Rove hate and smear lies.

The news media is picking up on their tactics this time- unlike 2004- and thus both McCain and Palin are attacking them.
Neither of them can stand the heat from being exposed for what they are. Liars.

When Sarah Palin ran for Governor she was kept completely under wraps. The press was not allowed anywhere near her, for good reason. She is only capable of mouthing cliches, soundbytes, and trite non sequiturs. McCain is handling her the same way in this campaign. No more interviews after the disastrous one with Charles Gibson.

We can't afford to have a vindictive small town, part time, know nothing President. Keep in mind, in the first year as Governor, she spent 300 days and nights at home- 600 miles from her office in Juneau- and charged Alaskans per diem expenses for doing it. $17,000 for meals, and $43,000 for transportation? Some reform.

Not this time.

Posted by: The Moose | September 15, 2008 1:24 PM

This sentence makes me insane with rage:
>>Recent media accounts have said that McCain is using more frequent and serious falsehoods than the Illinois senator, but some fact-check efforts have found occasional distortions in Obama ads as well.
the sentence above states and backs up that McCain is running worse ads, but only offhandedly on the way to stating that Obama isn't perfect. I can use the same formulation:
>>There's proof that Cheney eats crunchy baby heads, but it's also true that Obama eats steak.
Such a formulation equates the two, and any decent writer knows it.

Then we get:
>>This is the second spot in less than a week in which Obama has gone aggressively negative against McCain. A previous ad said McCain is out of touch and can't even use a computer, despite the fact that his war wounds make it difficult for him to type for any length of time.

So now we read about the frequency of Obama going negative while not even mentioning the fact that McCain started negative campaigning weeks before Obama? We don't mention that while Obama and his convention criticized actual Republican policy and articulated their own alternate approaches, McCain's ads and convention contained no content wahtsoever except personal attacks and unfounded invective. Even if we dismiss all that, the idea of any comparability between the negativity of each campaigns ads is absurd: McCain implies that Obama has impure thoughts about kindergarteners and Obama points out that McCain still can't use email. Then the author tries to elicit sympathy for McCain by referring to his war injury, but the point isn't how much email he personally types: it's that he doesn't understand the basics of the technology that drives our modern economy and culture.

The media, Kurtz included, and the Post more and more obviously each day, have entirely lost track of objectivity in favor of balance, of truth for equal time. Faced with one side lying repeatedly despite having been corrected and the other side trying to stay out of the mud and turning every cheek they've got, the media insists on presenting the story so that the two look equally dishonorable. the predictable result is to incentivise slander and lie not only by letting it go unchallenged, but also by allowing it to push substantive debate off the radar.

The facts are not always fair. They are not always balanced. But that's the only way our media will report it, whether true or not.

Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2008 1:22 PM

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

When even Rove says you've gone too far, you've gone way, way too far.

Posted by: drossless | September 15, 2008 1:21 PM

From the Nation"

The new swift boat attacks.

In 2004 the top twenty swift boat donors all gave (with one exception) at least $50,000 to the group. The top three--Houston home builder Bob Perry, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens and billionaire drugstore impresario and investor Harold Simmons--gave a combined $9.5 million ($4.45 million, $3 million and $2 million, respectively). Calculating the influence of these and the slightly less wealthy Swift Boat donors during this cycle is a touch more complicated than simply adding up their contributions. Each one exerts far more influence as a bundler, given the federal restrictions on individual giving, which limit donors to a maximum of $4,600 per cycle. So The Nation looked not only at the contributions of the donors themselves but also at those of their family members and employees. It's an imperfect method, since some employees are clearly contributing of their own volition (such as one employee of a Simmons company who gave money to Hillary Clinton), but it gives a rough estimate of who's backing whom and to what extent.

The most notable recipient of Swift Boat largesse is John McCain, erstwhile front-runner and Stand Up Guy.

"When the Swift Boat ads were first unleashed, McCain was alone among his Republican colleagues to condemn them. A fellow Vietnam veteran, a good friend of Kerry's and a former target of smears about his own service, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable," a "cheap stunt," and he urged Bush to condemn them. But in pursuit of the GOP nomination, McCain ditched the mantle of maverick for that of hack, and his once-floundering, possibly rejuvenated campaign has been aided along the way by $61,650 from Swift Boat donors and their associates. "There is such a thing as dirty money," said Senator Kerry in a statement, after The Nation informed him of McCain's FEC records. "I'm surprised that the John McCain I knew who was smeared in 2000 and thought so-called Swift Boating was wrong in 2004 would feel comfortable taking their money after seeing the way it was used to hurt the veterans I know he loves." (McCain's office did not return calls for comment."

Posted by: Bullwinkle J Moose | September 15, 2008 1:20 PM

I guess calling a woman VP candidate "pig" isn't dirty and dishonorable at all.
Obama is such a saint that anything comes out from his mouth is a compliment to other people.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 1:19 PM

If anything, this ad talks to the base for Obama. In no way does it draw independents toward his campaign. In fact, it comes across as just another politician taking the low road.

Posted by: Kate | September 15, 2008 1:17 PM

You state "A previous ad said McCain is out of touch and can't even use a computer, despite the fact that his war wounds make it difficult for him to type for any length of time." The fact? McCain can use a cell phone, telephone, Blackberry. Millions of severely handicapped people can use computers, far more handicapped than McCain. The "fact" is that McCain doesn't use a computer because he doesn't want to learn how to use a computer. The nonsense about his old war wounds is campaign spin that you're repeating verbatim. How about thinking for yourself and doing some actual reporting when you give "the fact."

Posted by: SpinDizzy | September 15, 2008 1:14 PM

Posted by: mane4 | September 15, 2008 12:54 PM

lol the democratic party mantra, lets beleive the national enquirer and the daily show for thier unbiased media coverage and thier focus on real issues.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 1:02 PM

ah, Obama"fairy tale" doesn't like it when his tactics are applied to himself.

poor kid

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 12:57 PM

Howard, why do you always fall into the false equivalency trap? Hasn't Jon Stewart beaten you up enough about this? I know your wife is a Republican media consultant but you don't have to spit out RNC talking points at every turn.

Posted by: mane4 | September 15, 2008 12:54 PM

McCain is not Bush... he's just intent on continuing Bush's failed policies.

Obama is not the messiah... but Republicans for some absurd reason enjoy calling him that.

Posted by: Justin in Chicago | September 15, 2008 12:43 PM

actaully, its obama who intends to continue bushes policys he just intends to tax the rich to pay for them and then add universal health care (wow how logical, add more weight to teh sinking boat).

btw, it was farrahkan a fundamentalist islamic terrorist who first called obama teh messiah, and democrats have chosen to continue that statement calling him "obamessiah".

facts would make ur point better next time, but as you beleive in obama, you obviously have none.

Posted by: dale | September 15, 2008 12:53 PM

FROM THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THE EDWARD'S STORY.


The NATIONAL ENQUIRER’S exclusive ongoing investigation of GOP VP Nom Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin’s goes far beyond a mere teen pregnancy crisis this week!

The Enquirer’s team of reporters has combed the Alaskan wilderness to discover the hidden truth about Gov. Palin’s family, which has become a central part of her political identity.

The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Sarah's oldest son, Track, was addicted to the power drug OxyContin for nearly the past two years, snorting it, eating it, smoking it and even injecting it. And as Track, 19, heads to Iraq as part of the U.S. armed forces, Sarah and her husband Todd were powerless to stop his wild antics, detailed in the new issue of The ENQUIRER, which goes on sale today.

THE ENQUIRER also has exclusive details about Track's use of other drugs, including cocaine, and his involvement in a notorious local vandalism incident.

“I’ve partied with him (Track) for years,” a source disclosed. “I’ve seen him snort cocaine, snort and smoke OxyContin, drink booze and smoke weed.”

The source also divulged the girls would do anything for Track and he’d use his local celebrity status to manipulate other guys “to get them to steal things he wanted.”

“He finally did what a lot of troubled kids here do,” the source divulged. “You join the military.”

And as Gov. Palin has billed the state of Alaska for various expenses related to her children, as reported by The Washington Post, The ENQUIRER's investigation reveals that she was so incensed by 17-year-old Bristol's pregnancy that she banished her daughter from the house.

Another family friend revealed pre-prego Bristol was as much of a hard partier as Track was.

“Bristol was a huge stoner and drinker. I’ve seen her smoke pot and get drunk and make out with so many guys. All the guys would brag that the just made out with Bristol.”

When Sarah found out the teen was pregnant by high schooler Levi Johnston, she was actually banished from the house. As part of the cover-up, Palin quickly transferred Bristol to another high school and made her move in with Sarah’s sister Heather 25 miles away!

And the ENQUIRER also learned that Levi Johnston, the baby mamma’s future wedded dada, who was glad handed by John McCain at the GOP Convention, isn’t too happy about his impending shotgun nups either.

“Levi got dragged out of the house to go to Minnesota,” Levi’s friend told The ENQUIRER. “Levi realizes he’s stuck being with Bristol because her mom is running for Vice President.”

The friend also confided that both Bristol and Levi “broke up a few times and they definitely messed around with other people.”

Meanwhile, as members of the Palin family’s war viciously over “Trooper-Gate” and claims of Sarah’s extramarital affair have turned the political race into a chaotic arena of threats, denials and vicious attacks by political black ops, The ENQUIRER has discovered shocking new details about the red-hot affair scandal!

For the full story of the secrets Sarah Palin is trying to hide – pick up the new ENQUIRER!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 12:44 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 12:44 PM

McCain is not Bush... he's just intent on continuing Bush's failed policies.

Obama is not the messiah... but Republicans for some absurd reason enjoy calling him that.

Posted by: Justin in Chicago | September 15, 2008 12:43 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 15, 2008 12:43 PM

Maybe McCains VP pick is finally running out of steam. Maybe its because of All the Scandals surrounding her.

She is accused of Cheating on her husband, with her husbands friend. http://www.theveep.com

What Sarah Palins Church Really Believes.
http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 12:41 PM

I almost feel bad for liberals. They're so politically ignorant and ridiculous, it's sad.

McCain is not Bush, and Obama is not the Messiah.

Posted by: Robyn | September 15, 2008 12:41 PM

I was leaning towards McCain because he had more experience. Then he picked Palin and showed that experience is no guarantee of good judgment. Now, it has been shown that Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere until it became an embarrassment. The main point, however, was she still accepted the money. She is not a reformer and McCain is not a maverick or he would have stayed with his first choice, Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Sonja | September 15, 2008 12:38 PM

If the media would stop trying to falsely balance every story about McCain's campaign lies (like in today's LA Times) and instead point out the egregious falsehoods that McCain utters and repeats every day in ads and in speeches, perhaps people wouldn't believe things are false. Polls show that more people think Obama will raise their taxes than McCain despite clear reporting in this very paper that Obama's tax plan is better for way more people.

Why is that? Because McCain, his ads, and his spokesmen lie about taxes every day.

The media needs to start reporting the truth. This very post tries to "balance" McCain complete total falsehoods with nonsense like "It is true that the Arizona senator has voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time and supports some of the same economic policies, such as extending the president's tax cuts. But McCain has differed on some Bush policies, such as supporting greater financial regulation."

McCain said himself he agrees with Bush on the "transcendet issues of the day." How is that in anyway equivalent to the stream of lies from McCain on the bridge to nowhere, sex education, taxes, immigration reform, etc?

Posted by: Marcos | September 15, 2008 12:38 PM

....Banks are failing, unemployment rising, gas prices rising...and all this while Bush 2 and McCain kiss and hold each other hand while america burns....

...The economy is funamentally strong....
now we see that it is not true...wrong again McCaint and peeeuuu Palin....

....how pathetic is McCaint and peeeuu Plain and their "followers" to say actually say and defend yet another lie....

More lies and more facts....more lies are forming as we speak and here's a new one...
...."there was no hurricane in Texas just a slight drizzle....."

"or its Obama's fault....."

I think that the RNC/GOP is becoming more and more schizophrenic by each passing day.....

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 15, 2008 12:35 PM

I find it interesting that the liberal media will often cry about constitutionally guaranteed free speech when their biased reporting of the presidential race is so extreme that it amounts to outright censorship and propoganda.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 12:35 PM

It is obvious that Obama would rather have panic in the streets, with people running on their banks. He is so irresponsible it borders on criminal. Much as Charles Schumer, a big recipient of these Wall Street firms money, got the run on the California bank. A president is supposed to calm the people. Obama is scaring the American people. If the American people have a run on banks, blame Obama

Posted by: NoToBo | September 15, 2008 12:32 PM

It looks like Senator Obama has decided that he needs to call Senator McCain out in the days leading up to the first debate.

The McCain camp has grossly distorted a lot of things lately, so maybe they it's time someone spent some money calling a spade a spade rather than waiting for the refs (media) to make the call. It's an interesting departure...and I'm guessing its part of a plan to shape the questioning in the coming debates.

Posted by: scott032 | September 15, 2008 12:26 PM

The entire WaPo is so in the tank for Obama, there should be therapists on had to deal with their perversion. Obama built his campaign on the lie of 100 years of war in Iraq. Now, he wants panic in the streets and people running on banks. The WaPo is doing such a disservice to this country. Only another round of newsroom layoffs with wake up the media elites and their condescending approach to this country. One has only to look at Shalaigh Murray's left-wing hissy fit today to prove that the WaPo political writers are outright DNC hacks.

Posted by: Karen | September 15, 2008 12:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company