Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Gets an Earful on 'The View'


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), listens as host Barbara Walters speaks with Cindy McCain during a broadcast of "The View," Sept. 12, 2008, in New York. (AP/ABC, Steve Fenn)

Updated 3:44 p.m.
By Robert Barnes and Michael D. Shear
Republican presidential nominee John McCain told the hosts of ABC's "The View" today that his running mate Sarah Palin had never sought earmarks from Congress while she was governor of Alaska, even though she had in fact asked for about $200 million for projects in her state and employed a lobbyist to help.

McCain at times faces tough questioning and commentary from the five female hosts of the popular morning show, with Joy Behar questioning two ads he is running against Democratic rival Barack Obama.

"We know that those two ads are untrue,'' Behar said. "They are lies.'' She was referring to two heavily criticized McCain ads, one that criticizes Obama's support of sex education, and another that says he was being disrespectful of Palin for his comment that McCain's call for change was like putting lipstick on a pig.

McCain said they "are not lies" and defended them.

Barbara Walters jumped in to note that McCain had made the lipstick on a pig comment, too, about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care proposal.

"About health care," McCain said, referring to his own comments. Obama "chooses his words very carefully. He shouldn't have said it."

McCain has portrayed Palin as a reformer unwilling to accept pork from Washington.

But Walters and Behar pressed.

"She also took some earmarks,'' Walters said.

"A lot," Behar added.

"No, not as governor she didn't,'' McCain responded.

The Obama campaign quickly produced a sheaf of newspaper articles indicating otherwise, such as a Sept. 2 Washington Post article that said the governor's administration "remains eager for many other earmarks. In February, Palin's office sent Sen. (Ted) Stevens a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for Alaska."

Walters was a particularly aggressive questioner, about Palin's qualifications and whether McCain was still the maverick he claimed to be.

She asked repeatedly what Palin was supposed to reform about Washington.

"The Republican Party. The Democratic Party. She's going to reform all of Washington," McCain said.

"What specifically?" Walters asked

McCain mentioned Palin selling the state airplane.

"She sold the airplane at a loss," Walters said.

Behar jumped in: "You used to be sort of the maverick. Then you sort of turned."

Asked McCain: "In what way?"

Behar said, "You sort of became more in lock step..."

"I'm the same person as I always was," said McCain.

McCain also drew scattered boos from the audience when he said he thought Roe v. Wade was "a very bad decision.''

Things got a bit better when Cindy McCain joined her husband on the show's final segment.

Asked why McCain should be president, she said, "for the obvious reasons" and then said he is a "measured man" who always puts his country first.

Host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked Cindy McCain whether there were were areas where the two disagreed.

McCain leaned over and said, "Never."

She answered, "He and I do see eye to eye on most things."

Things went more smoothly on McCain's next talk show stop, when he and Cindy stopped by the "Rachel Ray Show."

McCain donned a "Kiss the Candidate'' apron and talked about ribs and his love of grilling. If elected, he pledged, there will be grills at the White House and Camp David and "I guarantee you that no one but me will do the grilling."

The bubbly Ray told the audience that she had just learned that McCain likes to buy his ribs at Costco, to which she expressed surprise. "I've been to Coscto, I just never pictured you guys..."

McCain revealed a secret to his ribs: lemon juice, during the grilling, to keep the meat moist.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 12, 2008; 2:51 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Camp Presses McCain on 'Divorced' Remarks
Next: Candidate Reaction: Hurricane Ike Threatens Gulf Coast

Comments

Nobody seems concerned here that Michelle Obama had pre-conditions to her interview on the View that everyone said went so well? That is why all the questions were basically fluff. Everyone has agendas, just remember what the agenda of The View is...

http://www.mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DCfred | September 14, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who watches The View in a regular basis knows that most of the ladies of the View are unapologetic supporters of Barack Obama, which is fine, nothing wrong with that. But I think they are a bit heavy-handed in promoting his candidacy in the show. I don't agree with them, but I like the show.

http://www.mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com

Posted by: DCfred | September 14, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

to Linda 12:05
Also, Cindy McCain should give her half sister a few bucks, since their father only left his other daughter $10,000 from his huge fortune.

Posted by: just thinking | September 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

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 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I just simply cannot believe, how anyone could fall for Palin or McCain. They've been talking in circles for forever. And when caught in their lies, cry "bias".

Where was all this "outrage of unfairness", when FoxNews was playing Rev Wright 24 hours a day for three months?

McCain, Palin, instead of calling fouls, how about answering a 'straight-talk' question once in awhile, that doesn't conflict with your record or previous words?

Posted by: wolf | September 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I was a Hillary Clinton Supporter and even though I like Joe Biden this hatred toward Sarah Palin has done nothing but make me want to vote for her. Plus I think Obama showed her ZERO respect when he didn't even pretend to vet her. She almost beat him, and the sad thing is that JOE BIDEN got less votes either time he ran for president than Sarah Palin did when she ran for Mayor. I think Hillary has been treated awful. When they didn't even allow the full roll call to take place that did it for me.

Posted by: Emily | September 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I wish Cindy McCain had said - I would own 8 houses if I had a step brother or family member living in a shack in Africa. If Obama can't help his own step brother how do you expect him to help AMERICA???? Not much of a community organizer if you ask me.

Posted by: Linda | September 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, it took the View to do the jobs of Main Stream Media. No one has held McCain nor Palin's feet to the fire. Palin has been allowed to not give interviews, and eventually this will grow old. Frankly, it already has. For example, Palin, you are pro-life, but yet the campaign has talked you into putting aside your anti-stem cell research stance in order to win the campaign. Shouldn't her pro-life supporters know this. Isn't more than just about right or left. This is a blatant example of how the news media has pandered to Conservatives, and allowed them to get elected, and then they inform later. Thus, George W. Bush happens.

Palin needs to be freed from the hands of these evil men who are not allowing her to express her opinions openly. Is that real feminism? Speak when you're spoken to? Heck, McCain didn't even allow his wife to really answer the question? Real change....NEVER.

Posted by: Zion | September 14, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

every state or large city run by liberals all have one thing in common falure

Posted by: wtobias | September 13, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

-----

Please, Senator, tell us who Sarah would reform in Washington. What, what? OMG! This is too hard a question! I can't think. I can't think!

-----

Posted by: pinkturtlesnap | September 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Courage, Dems! Your seat cushions function as floatation devices.

Posted by: BJ | September 13, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

On 9/12, every Alaskan received the $3,269 per person rebate (including childern). Despite Palin’s claim “thanks but no thanks” for “Bridge to nowhere”, state of Alaska has kept the money as general fund. It is very clear to me that the money for “Bridge to nowhere” help Palin’s government to give extra $1,200 per Alaskan. As a tax payer of the other 49 state, we certainly unwillingly paying part of Alaska’s super big rebate.

John McCain don't even know how to send email. Sure he don't know the fact can be check easily through the web. He lie to us and think we don't know the fact. He is out of day, out of touch and will do anything to get elected.

Posted by: Peter | September 13, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Video McCain throws his cell phone
http://www.mccanes.com

Palin has been accused of Affair,
http://www.theveep.com

Ron Paul, Going third Party Will ruin McCAins chances this year?http://www.BarrPaul08.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow the dark sided of Liberals was on display at the View. Don't recall them holding Barak's feet to the fire for his half truth ads and comments. If the regulars include any Independents they got to see what the Left is really like. They showed more hospitality to a reeling drunk Danny Divito. The contrast in their I'm not worthy persona when Barak was on versus their hyena/vulture flesh eating attack can not be missed. I hope they invite Palin on and she politely declines saying now that request is truly "a brigde to nowhere". They deserve and hopefully will get the same backlash the MSM and US magazine received

Posted by: j.stafford.kks | September 13, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse


The double standards of the american left is criminal. Obama should not even be considered for president. He has NO experience and his treatment of women is beyond discusting.

LIBERAL=SEXIST

OBAMA=SEXIST PIG

Posted by: julia | September 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

1975-1991 Marijuana Legal in Alaska

2004 -2006 Marijuana Legal in Alaska

Palin has admitted she used marijuana, before Alaska outlawed it in 2006, but claims she did not like it and does not use it now.

So how long did Palin use marijuana?

Posted by: Sue | September 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

John McCain goes on The View because he won't face serious journalists. So what we get is fluff and banter instead of honest debate about health care, entitlements, foreign policy approaches -- anything of substantive that actually consumes a President's energy and time. Just how much time and energy did the last GOP President spend on abortion politics and other distractions that got him re-elected in the last divisive election. Why do we Americans put up with this evasion of the McCain camp to be serious?

Posted by: Chicago 11 | September 13, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

The view has no balance. It is made up of far left liberals, who tilt considerably close to racist. Whoopi has taken over the program, and as her history shows she will play the race card at any opportunity given. Joy is not far behind her. Barbara Walters is a joke, and then you have Elizabeth as a token white. The only people who are going to take anything of substance from this garbage show are those liberals and racist that watch it. I give the show zero credibility. McCain showed more class than I would have. I would have told them all, in no uncertain terms a strong piece of my mind. There opinion mean nothing to me. They are so in the tank for the liberal, leftist, racist, marxist, socialist, fraud obama.

Used2bdemocrat

Posted by: Used2bdemocrat | September 13, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The truth is that the Republicans love themselves more than anything else: they are arrogant, brainless and evil! They have dragged this country to the mud, have sent innocent soldiers to a fabricated war, have ruined our economy and they dare to fool people around with unprepared ex-beauty queens and old ex- POW candidates! The more ignorant and distracted they keep people the more votes they will get! It is time to get back to the issues on how to save this country! Let's infrom people! Vote SMART! Vote Obama/Biden 2008!

Posted by: carmen@hoffmeijer.nl | September 13, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm...while I commend McCain for going on the "View" (how many people watch anyhow?), who really cares what a bunch of washed up libs think? I guess a few folks do...but if the audience represents Whoopi's views...oh well...lost cause anyhow.

He did a good job though.

It's sad...I liked Whoopi in "Ghost" but I guess I can just say I like her acting characters...not her politics.


Posted by: MakeUsProud | September 13, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

The dogs on the view showed less grace than the doberman pinchers in "The Omen."

Posted by: William Combs | September 13, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Way to go libs, most people don't want to be associated with the likes of Whoopee and Joy so just keep those types in the spotlite.

Posted by: Kathy | September 13, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

It seemed like Whoopi was accusing Obama of being a religious bigot for closing all his speeches with "God Bless America".

Posted by: Ruth | September 13, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Here's my VIEW of New Jersey-

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

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

Look out below....there goes New Jersey!
14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Looks like Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus....and Seattle and Helena Montana and Raleigh NC, and...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pennsylvania Quinnipiac Obama 48, McCain 45 Obama +3

Florida Quinnipiac McCain 50, Obama 43 McCain +7


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

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

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

Posted by: Scott | September 13, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

What kind of show is the View anyway.
A few women , none of them are smart , sitting around and talking a lot of nonsense.
I saw the show when Obama was on and it was an Obama lovefest , all of them gushing and drooling over him.
Doesn't look like McCain received the same treatment.
Nothing wrong with asking the tough questions , that is if you apply it to all the candidates.
Then one could call it fair and balanced .
Something the ladies of the VIEW wouldnt know how to do.

Posted by: Greta | September 13, 2008 5:47 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 5:00 AM | Report abuse

nprxxlbq84kcrfjw2 nxwthrua i8zq1q4i

Posted by: h9zo3q2t5y | September 13, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

UNITE

You are getting your hands on some strong stuff. You've got your graph upside down. It the little messiah Obama going down and the more he tries to be himself, the more he scares the hell of out America. He is not fit to lead America and has been endorse by most of the enemies of America.

Posted by: Breathing a sigh of relief | September 13, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

None of the 9-11 hijackers were from Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is not from Afghanistan .Ayman al-Zawahiri is not from Afghanistan . NONE of Al Qaeda's leaders are from Afghanistan If the war on terror is just about Afghanistan what is the explanation for this?

The main cause of terror is that mideast regimes and elites encourage it.

Posted by: Jonathan | September 13, 2008 3:43 AM | Report abuse

Larry G,
You are apparently clueless and out of touch just like McCain.
The Republicans cheated in the last 2 elections: Florida in 2000,
Ohio in 2004.


"You liberals need to take a deep breath. Those airheads on the view illustrate the hypocrisy of feminists and liberals. Had Palin been a democrat pick they would have been drooling. As it is, she has class, accomplishments, a governing record, integrity, morals and principles. Just the opposite of Hillary, Pelosi, and any other female democrat politician. That's why the ninnies at the View and the rest of you libs hate her.
You whine and complain, but your stupid party leaders always come up with losers. This year is no exception."

Posted by: Larry G | September 12, 2008 10:06 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 3:38 AM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama jr. quoted as saying "MY MUSLIM FAITH" when interviewed by George Stephanopoulas--what Christian on the face of the earth has ever made that slip of the lip if it weren't so. Name me one persn that you know who as a Jew ever said my Christian faith....One Muslim who ever said My Christian Faith? NONE Obama=scary!

Posted by: Jinny | September 13, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama Jr.

Posted by: Jinny | September 13, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Old man and beauty queen are going down!

All bigots, thugs and freaks put your muzzles on because you are in for the ride of your life.

Talked to over 50 olderish mostly white Obama supporters today and I live in Republican central and a majority were former Republicans. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Posted by: UNITE | September 13, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

all nigs and white trash and liberals will lose this year again!!!!!!!!!!....thank god for conservatives!!!!

Posted by: guitarman007

For you to put some trash out here like this? Bash people for their opinions but to be so racially insensitive to say "nigs" shows how ignorant you really are. Get a life and an education.

Posted by: manetric | September 13, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Palin's plan for war against Russia will require the immediate Draft of hundreds of thousands of men and hundreds of millions in arms.
The Russian premier addressed HER remarks today in his speech.
He is not backing down.

Posted by: bruce Becker | September 13, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

I want to address Palin's comments about going to war against Russia over South Ossetia and the Georgian Republic.
1. You HAVE to know when to hold your cards and when to fold the hand. Being a pitbull is a losing strategy in poker and war.
Its not a game. War is terrible, with economic, and life changing impacts on all parties.
2. War in the Caucasus mountains, far from supply lines, in the Russians backyard, against a nuclear power is a losing proposition.
3. The Russians are fighting our enemy, the Chechens, who are training the al-quaida.
4. the only reason to fight about Georgia is energy, in this case, gas and a pipeline our English buddies just paid for. BP, the company.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

At least Democrats "whine" about the economy down the toilet, loss of jobs, deaths of soldiers, and veterans living in deplorable conditions...

Republicans whine about lipstick.

Posted by: B Cook | September 13, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

I'd just like to know if the "ladies" on The View will be this tough with Senator Obama. No, they won't, because they agree with the Senator's philosophy of government. They are pro-choice. I think it was vicious of them to gang up on him like that. The fact is Sarah Palin may have asked for additional funds, but that doesn't mean they were special earmarks, and she did say no to the Bridge to Nowhere when she realized that it would cost so much for taxpayers. The fact that she was able to reallocate some of the money to more important areas is actually a good thing. These View ladies have really gone too far.

Posted by: Bryan | September 13, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Don't quite understand why McCain would bother showing up on "the View." Those people have the most closed minds on this earth. If they're not on the Obama payroll already, the campaign needs to cut checks for the bunch of them!

Posted by: Cincinnati Rick | September 13, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

You misspelled "Rachael Ray". The horror!

Posted by: Bray-D | September 13, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Lying is a Virtue to Palin -- Any American who does not know this must be arriving really late.

Palin has sprinkled a number lies around.

a) she sold the jet in eBay. That is a lie.

b) She said no, but no thanks to the "bridge to nowhere." That is a lie.

c) Last year Palin received $200 million of earmarks, she has always denied she receiving anything. When she was asked in the interview, she still denied for receiving earmarks, but everybody knows that is a LIE.

c) She said she fired the Public Safty commissioner not because he did not fire the troop -- the in-law who divorced the sister. That eveybody knows that is a lie.

Now the Value issue. If Palin is a holder of these fuzzy values, how did she not teach her own daughter those values. Values? Mere whitewash.

Posted by: Allen Alex | September 13, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

So, tell me, all you so called "reporters" out there:
How does it feel to learn that the elderly ladies of "The View" are the only members of the media with the journalistic integrity, courage, and patriotism to ask the tough, albeit obvious, questions of John McCain?

I hope you are ashamed. But it's not too late to redeem yourselves in the eyes of the American people.
Do your job! Expose the lies and shameful tactics of the McCain/Palin campaign.

Posted by: FINALLY | September 13, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

all nigs and white trash and liberals will lose this year again!!!!!!!!!!....thank god for conservatives!!!!

Posted by: guitarman007 | September 13, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

"left the place shaking the dirt and dust off his feet as he left.

Posted by: tucanofulano | September 12, 2008 10:30 PM"

Oh, so now McCain is an apostle of Jesus?
I guess he's old enough.

Posted by: JakeE | September 12, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Lying is a Virtue to Palin -- Any American who does not know this must be arriving really late.

Palin has sprinkled a number lies around.

a) she sold the jet in eBay. That is a lie.

b) She said no, but no thanks to the "bridge to nowhere." That is a lie.

c) Last year Palin receive $200 million of earmarks, she has always deniedshe ecieving anything. When she was asked in the interview, she still denied for receiving earmarks, but everybody knows that is a LIE.

c) She said she fired the Public Safty commissioner not because he did not fire the troop -- the in-law who divorced the sister. That eveybody knows that is a lie.

Now the Value issue. If Palin is a holder of these fuzzy values, how did she not teach her own daughter those values. Values? Mere whitewash.

Posted by: Alen Alex | September 12, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Dear God... don't you liberals ever get tired of whining?

Posted by: John | September 12, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

For all you so called conservatives where were you when the Bush crime family high jacked the constitution?

Posted by: brock101 | September 12, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Maybe John and Cindy should open a BBQ restaurant. Can call it Pig and Lipstick.

Posted by: Peter | September 12, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Look out below....there goes New Jersey!
14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Looks like Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

The word 'liberal' is overused and it is not clearly understood by too many people. Many people think of liberal as evil when it simply means open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or establihed form or way. In other words these people are creative, because if you don't question the status quo how are you going to change it?
How could one have reached this stage of development without questioning the past. The democrats have brought so many changes to this country in many areas.
The socalled liberal ideas are not party sensitive. Liberal ideas like social security and medicaid are popular with all citizens and they do not discriminate along party lines.
Why don't we just debate the proposals on their merit and stop all this negativity and personal attack.

Posted by: beenthere7 | September 12, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

"McCain not only served our country but was a POW!"

Really? So he shouldn't be criticized for lying because he was a POW? You know Richard Nixon served his country, too. Should he have been given a pass on lying?

A long time ago, McCain really was a different sort of politician. But he got desperate, and he let the Karl Roves in the Republican party push him into selecting an empty vessel ultraconservative to fire up the base. Now it's all demagoguery, all the time.

He sold his soul to win this election. The unfortunate part is: he won't be the one suffering when McCain-Palin drag us into another war. It'll be the American people, yet again, footing the bill in both money and lives.

"How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you figure out who’s hitting you?" ~ Harry Truman

Posted by: bc54321 | September 12, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

What goes around comes around. He clearly didn't expect a nice group of ladies to be aware of terrifying things called facts.

But will we end up with a "Liar-in-Chief" in the White House?

Posted by: itsonlyme | September 12, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

The penguin got what he deserved. He is too old and don't even remember what he said four months ago.

Posted by: brock101 | September 12, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

We don't need another marionette in power.
We know Karl Rove and the neo-cons are pulling her strings. She said she wouldn't second guess the Israeli's 3 or 4 times in the Charles Gibson interview. She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine. Never talked to any foreign leaders.

As far as I'm concerned she's not Ready to Lead Lemmings over a cliff let alone my fellow American people.

Wake up from your amnesia over the last 8 years with this apocalyptic leader who says God talks to him.

VOTE FOR THE ONLY RATIONAL CHOICE IN THIS ELECTION. VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!!!

Posted by: JD | September 12, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin - Ready to Mislead

McCain/Palin - More wars than you though possible. Russia is next.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

tucanofulano |

Posted by: Electric Bill | September 12, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

tucanofulano |

Posted by: Electric Bill | September 12, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

how that is only there to kiss celebrities asses.

wrong on that one Kathy. They didnt kiss his FORMER-pow ass, did they!!
BEING A FORMER POW does not convey special powers or waive the requirement for accuracy in statements, Kathy.
He lies, he is going to be called on it.
ROVE AND FOX are not on EVERY channel.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

What's "The View"?

Posted by: Manchu | September 12, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I see that one of the poster here mentions the POW thing like that meant they were mean to him.
He is not still a POW. He is ok now. He is fit, he says.
Why does being a POW 45 years ago mean he deserves special treatment today? It DOESNT.
WHEN he lies, the public needs to know. Dont defend him at ANY cost.
Are you not able to transcend your petty politics and see that the USA deserves the best leadership possible?
Walters caught him in lies. She is too tough to fall for his POW story as a way to get by with lies. She is a real reporter.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

only dirt little jonnie boy would be shaking off


would be his wifey.

,.

Posted by: the | September 12, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

disgusting thing that happened to McCain today is that he wasn't


hit with a lawsuit for instigating FRAUD and purposely misinterpreting facts to lead to erroneous conclusions.


he should have been indicted, not questioned.


indict, arrest, prosecute, try and convict...


criminal, civil and possibly corruption of the electoral process.....a form of treason for profit

..........Mc Cain he's a but bouy to George W.


they swing together, Ashe may be checking out soon what with HIV and all


.

Posted by: the most | September 12, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

In a televised interview Friday, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she sought $200 million in federal projects from Congress - while earlier in the day her GOP running mate McCain INSISTED Palin had NEVER sought money from Congress.

The lies just keep on piling up. McCain is a caricature of himself.
He was a POW you know. Of course he was. That's when he made propaganda films for the commies to use against our troops.

Posted by: Bruce Becker | September 12, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

It is a wonder Sen. MCain agreed to be on this worthless show so few actualy watch. The featherheaded "personalities" are there to incite a riot whenever they can. It is to his credit Sen. McCain put up with their drivel, and left the place shaking the dirt and dust off his feet as he left.

Posted by: tucanofulano | September 12, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

ABC should be embarrassed by the way McCain was treated today. That was the most disgusting and disrespectful interview I have ever seen. Obama was not treated this way! McCain not only served our country but was a POW! He should be treated with the respect he deserves. Body language says a lot - Ms. Walters would not even look him in the eye. DISGUSTING, PATHETIC, USELESS show that is only there to kiss celebrities asses.

Posted by: Kathy Phelps | September 12, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

on his knees to George W. Bush,


he likes looking at the one eyed snake...


he's little davie broder


how's that rebound working for you snyder?


.

Posted by: kabookey is one of those | September 12, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Honor=Obama | September 12, 2008 10:23 PM

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

Yea go back to Saint O and his 100 year war remark he kept spewing when he knew it was a lie. How about Saint O going back to taking publix financing like he promised or debates like he promised. The man is talking out of both sides of his pie hole.

Posted by: kabookey | September 12, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

you don't get anything when you pay for it.


you want to run Washington D.C. well and have a good country?


get some engineers in charge of things....you don't have to elect them, but you could hire them to give you some project plans...

make the ECONOMY the NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE that this country works on....


don't lie, no one respects a liar, and don't say something that you're unwilling to do once the line is crossed...


make accurate assessments of situations that make sense,


any decent engineer can make money without having to fabricate BS

why do you tolerate it in leaders????

too stupid, too lax, to busy licking?

get over it and do the job.


.

Posted by: what's wrong with corruption???? | September 12, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Those cackling hens would not know the truth if it hit them in the face. I wish McCain would have turned to Boy Behar and told her to tell us what was in the bill in question in the ad. She has no clue, just spewing out the dem talking points. McCain should have said he had not been ganged up like this since he was in nam and those guys had better talking points too.

Posted by: kabookey | September 12, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Honor=Obama | September 12, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

is something George W. is used to


exercising with his tongue.


.

Posted by: Larry's G-Spot... | September 12, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

what I love?


someone with intelligence.

hard to find here....specially amongst the "landed class"

since they've not had to compete to get to the front of the line...


graft/influence peddling and what not

they have no real ability, except collusion.,.


that's why it's so easy to crush them...


they're basic primitives emotionally, intellectually and socially


oral sex is their panacea.


.askt George W.


.he'd ask monica to wet her seegar in him


.

Posted by: yah know | September 12, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

You liberals need to take a deep breath. Those airheads on the view illustrate the hypocrisy of feminists and liberals. Had Palin been a democrat pick they would have been drooling. As it is, she has class, accomplishments, a governing record, integrity, morals and principles. Just the opposite of Hillary, Pelosi, and any other female democrat politician. That's why the ninnies at the View and the rest of you libs hate her.
You whine and complain, but your stupid party leaders always come up with losers. This year is no exception.

Posted by: Larry G | September 12, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The only way to put an end to the circus that has become our election coverage is if the TV networks and cable news fact check the presidential ads and refuse to air them if they contain untruths, slanders, etc.

Geez - I wonder what the McCain team will do with all their advertising money then!

McCain/Palin - Ready to Mislead

Posted by: Jane Doe | September 12, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry you republicans, that the view was actually tough on the republicns!! However it is about time someone does! They sit here and just criticize Obama and not tell us Working Class people what the hell they are going to do for us. All I heard at the Republican Convention was ripping on people, I didn't see any talk of what they are going to do for us, besides lower taxes and by that they mean for the most wealthy people in our country and the corporations too. this campaign has been too much of talking and not a lot of action there is a lot of people hurting out there and all i hear from the Republican party is fearing us americans and bashing the other party to get in. it's about time we all wake up and think about the issues and think about the people who have 3 jobs in this country trying to make ends meet. Or think about the people who don't have health care, or the person dying but they can't find whats wrong with them without having stem cell research to help them. We as a nation need to think whats best for us and whats best for the little guys who have nothing. We need to start thinking not just about ourselves. Our nation is so greedy and only cares about ourselves. We need people wo like us around the world and they are CLEARLY saying with McCain and Palin that's not going to happen!!!!!! Wake Up AMERICA!!!

Posted by: Nick | September 12, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Evolution or Creationism? Obama or McCain? Let's debate these equally worthy alternatives. Fair and balanced. Fact versus baloney. Let's find the stupidest, most doctrinaire politician, one who can be manipulated from behind the scenes, and set him (or her) down in the President seat. Let the good times continue to roll for sole-source contractors, war profiteers and oil companies.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | September 12, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

I used to think "puff daddy"" puff diddy" "diddy" combs was the epitome of a pobama supporter. After today-whoopie. So erudite.
Or maybe pam anderson. Now, there's a real debater for ya!
pobama sho' got some geniuses in his fan base.
And you emocrats wonder why you lost.

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Barack has been a liar since he was a baby, don't expect him to change now. There are 118 documented lies since he started running for president. Good think liberals are so stupid. If only he could convince those bitter racist crackers that are clinging to their guns and religion, then he would win in a landslide. I can be proud of G.D. America for the first time in my life.

Posted by: Mrs. B. Hussein Obama | September 12, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Barack wants to confiscate personal property to give to the lazy. However, he will not send a dollar of his own money to his brother that lives in a hut. Barack gives 1-2% of his income to charity and McCain gives 27%. Shows what a hypocrite, freedom hater that Barrack is.

Posted by: COMMIE Lover | September 12, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Whoa...Did any pick up the racist tone that Barbara had when she assured Whoopi that we 'white folks will take care of you' in reference to Whoopi's question about returning to slavery? Eeeoww! Did she expect a 'thank ya massa' with that comment? Imagine if someone less liberal would have make that same comment!! Yet not a word in this paper. Come on someone call Barbara on HER racially superior attitude!!!

Posted by: libra2 | September 12, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"because somehow reading the exact wording of a peice of legislature changes anything?"

(You mean 'legislation'. 'Legislature' is the body of people with the power and responsibility to make laws. 'Legislation' is a law enacted by a legislative body.)

And when the ad in question makes statements about that piece of legislation, I don't think you can really argue that the exact wording doesn't change anything. Not unless you want to look like an idiot.

McCain's ad says that it was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners". I've gone right to the source here, and that statement is untrue. It was not.

Now unless you can go and look at the legislation and show me exactly where it says it's about teaching 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners', you've got nothing. To save you the time, I'll point out that it explicitly states, "course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate." (p2, l12)

So: put up or shut up.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Correction
I posted this very early on other sites. Some of the edits are very tight. I dare Gibson and ABC to stream the "raw" footage without burnt in but continuous timecode. Palin knows the questions and answers. There are to many edits. They cut her answers. You cann't cram and not make mistakes. Actually, its a poor editing job because she talks so fast sometimes making the edits abrupt. Most tv journalist will pick this up. The average Joe or Jane blow won't.
.

RICK DAVIS, McCain's man is controlling the press. He throws what I call "flash bang grenades" "He told you the campaign wasn't going to be about issues. What has it been about Oprah and lip stick. And the press just plays along with their behinds up in the air. Can you believe with all the problems in this country that they spent two whole days and on lipstick. Rick controls everything about Palin including who she talks too. ABC network went to bed with him for ratings. What good is a bunch of cut up edited tapes spread out over who knows how long. Charlie Gibson already lost his creditability with the Obama interview, but now he has sold his soul to the devil. He's worst than fox news. Its all about control for Rick Davis the real press will never get a chance to interview Palin. Her first real "live" press conference will not take place for months, win or lose because she's NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME. And if she is NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME, then how can she help lead (or possibly lead) this country? She is the biggest sham the republican party has going but more importantly, she's dangerous for the country. Since there are those in the media afraid to say it, I'll say it for them. The press traveling with Palin can't even ask her questions,but they can record the same stump speech over and over again. The country has her speech but doesn't know who she is because they are kept away from asking her about her views.
LOOK OUT! BANG! Palin Talks Up Clinton on ABC Rick just threw another grenade and the media is off track again! For instance,is Palin's husband subpoenaed in 'Troopergate' probe. The BBC beat the washington post with the headlines and its 9:27PM Let me help you with a clue washpost. Todd is relationed to a certain VP candidate for the US States. That's real news.
By the way Charlie, you sellout, don't forget to thank your sponsor...RICK DAVIS. Next up Fox News as I predicted earlier. (What a suprise)Glen Beck will probably get a shot, maybe "Morning Joe" But I repeat there will not be any "live" or taped Q and A from legit press. None.

Posted by: WAY TO MANY EDITS CHARLIE CUTS HER OFF | September 12, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove is a liar that doesn't expect to be checked....

Mc Cain is channeling Karl's style...


quote: "This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again."

Karl lies when twisting isn't enough....he's about as artful as a gay pig in fishnet stockings


sans pants....


as is Pal'in


she lets you drill her underage daughter as long as you marry th epig.


.

Posted by: this is Karl Rove's handiwork... | September 12, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Um, "drossless," go back and read my post. I'm on your side on this. I also have great respect for Theodore Roosevelt. I was commenting on the comparison.

Posted by: valandsend | September 12, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I agree with GP that "The View" did not give the McCains the courtesy or respect they deserved and what they showed the Obama's.

I have no doubt it was to placate Whoopie who is already screaming racism.

Posted by: GW | September 12, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

you're afraid of me.


how silly.


you should be.

Posted by: oh | September 12, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

"I have been in the media industry for over 20 years, and it is not all that common for liberal bias to be so out in the open- this time emerging from Barbara Walters at a surprising intensity. If this was supposed to be an interview, why weren't McCain and his wife treated as courteously as Obama or Michelle? It is very clear that the media wants Obama to win this election."

Posted by: GP | September 12, 2008 8:47 PM
-------------------------------------------
You did say 20 years in the media business, not 20 years in the news business, right? Its the responsibility of the press to point out when a candidate lies. If they are not called on it, the electorate has a skewed view of what that candidate will do in office. Our current president would never have been able to lie to the American people had there been an Edward R Morrow asking him questions. John McCain was expecting to get his usual fluff piece like he got on the Rachel Ray Show (I care about healthcare and the economy not grilling tips from a Presidential candidate). Instead, Barbara Walters remembered her days as a real journalist and asked RELEVANT questions. Good for her. I'm sick of politicians lying to our faces and no journalists calling them out on it.

Posted by: drmondo | September 12, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Dale: "you dont venture to any area aside from the top 10 most liberally biased sites on the net."

I'm pretty sure www.ilga.gov - the Illinois General Assembly website - is not one of the 10 most liberally biased sites on the net.

You seem to have a habit of just ignoring whichever facts don't fit your view, while constantly badgering everyone to 'go and check the facts'. It's not an endearing trait.


because somehow reading the exact wording of a peice of legislature changes anything?
oh ya i forgot, its not about education but puppies and fences and how high is too high. hun, you dont research anything, it has nothing to do with facts when you blatantly deny and them blame me for the same tactics u wont admit outright, at least i am blameless because i am not claiming an accusation that has no basis against something that is not being seriously legislated because there is no hard facts against it.

but perhaps you should get factcheck or any other liberal news outlet to stand by thier slander in court, it would at least teach you fact from fiction, hopefully.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

and what is Clear Channel


aren't NBC CBS CNN FOX all media outlets for the corporateTockracy? which rhymes quite nicely with corporate hypocrisy...


HEY VOTERS:

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: your betters....

Posted by: I'm sorry, who owns the Wall Street Journal... | September 12, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

no there has been honestly speaking a coverup of a conning spiracy in the media...


vis a vis the _illegal_ invasion of a sovereign nation

after a false flag attack orchestrated by the bush family and the saudis

wanna dance little minnow?


.

Posted by: rmorrow... | September 12, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

aren't you?


bias?


calling a liar a liar?

wtf?

is george w. bush gay? why isn't that in the media, mister 20 years in "the game"


are you predjudiced? do you work in Washington D.C.


or are you just a flamer?

Posted by: GP is a liar | September 12, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

But remember, there is no liberal bias in the media. LOL.

Posted by: rmorrow | September 12, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Dale: "you dont venture to any area aside from the top 10 most liberally biased sites on the net."

I'm pretty sure www.ilga.gov - the Illinois General Assembly website - is not one of the 10 most liberally biased sites on the net.

You seem to have a habit of just ignoring whichever facts don't fit your view, while constantly badgering everyone to 'go and check the facts'. It's not an endearing trait.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I have been in the media industry for over 20 years, and it is not all that common for liberal bias to be so out in the open- this time emerging from Barbara Walters at a surprising intensity. If this was supposed to be an interview, why weren't McCain and his wife treated as courteously as Obama or Michelle? It is very clear that the media wants Obama to win this election.

Posted by: GP | September 12, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

do you work for AEI, JINSA, Heritage Foundation, AIPAC, Brookings or any other


neo con think tanks?


.

Posted by: hello dale | September 12, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

dale?

do you work in the 3 state area?


what's your job title?


what's your area of expertise?


have you ever done defense contracting?


intelligence? communications? logistics?


come on little dawg, I feel like some fun.


.

Posted by: what am I | September 12, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

a liberal? sfb...aka dale


got a minute? I will roast you like chestnuts on an open fire.

Posted by: what's | September 12, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

quit lying little punter...

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: your betters....

Posted by: some common sense... | September 12, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 8:15 PM

again, you prove your ignorance by stating multiple things, 1) you hold me as potentially misinformed while you dont venture to any area aside from the top 10 most liberally biased sites on the net. 2) you give me a benefit of a doubt while holding mccain fully responsible for a possible misinterpretation of fact that was NOT CAUGHT by ANY media outlet despite having been stated openly and written in articles including fox and other right wing biased news outlets (not to claim credit, but to state that when it was simply a news story it was not called a lie) until it was a part of a mccain add (which still remains on the air and hasnt even been legally threatened because obama has no validity to his claims of falsehood).

but yes, i digress, you must be right, if cnn msn nbc and the washintgon post agree it cant be liberal bias, not at all.

its okay tho hun, i have nothing more to debate with you, i wont change your mind and i rest fully assured htat your ignorance has been proven by the sites you claim as "Fact checkers" to anyone who takes a single iota of effort to research beyond thier own agenda.

but on that not, how does it feel to be misinterpreted? prejudged? either way, i thank you for proving my point, whether you realize you did or not, i shall have no problem refering people to this entire conversation for thier own knowledge.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: your betters....

Posted by: deepthoughts of love and rage... | September 12, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

I think I am going to vote Republican. I live in Philly and I like Ed Rendell and Joe Biden but I don't think I like where the democratic party is going. I didn't think at 35 I would be out of the mainstream but I am just getting a bad feel for the people that are supporting Sen. Obama. It seems like people are so angry that they are saying things they don't mean. There is also this superior thing I am not getting. Sorry

Posted by: somecommonsense | September 12, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I think I am going to vote Republican. I live in Philly and I like Ed Rendell and Joe Biden but I don't think I like where the democratic party is going. I didn't think at 35 I would be out of the mainstream but I am just getting a bad feel for the people that are supporting Sen. Obama. It seems like people are so angry that they are saying things they don't mean. There is also this superior thing I am not getting. Sorry

Posted by: somecommonsense | September 12, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I think I am going to vote Republican. I live in Philly and I like Ed Rendell and Joe Biden but I don't think I like where the democratic party is going. I didn't think at 35 I would be out of the mainstream but I am just getting a bad feel for the people that are supporting Sen. Obama. It seems like people are so angry that they are saying things they don't mean. There is also this superior thing I am not getting. Sorry

Posted by: somecommonsense | September 12, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I think I am going to vote Republican. I live in Philly and I like Ed Rendell and Joe Biden but I don't think I like where the democratic party is going. I didn't think at 35 I would be out of the mainstream but I am just getting a bad feel for the people that are supporting Sen. Obama. It seems like people are so angry that they are saying things they don't mean. There is also this superior thing I am not getting. Sorry

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else find it utterly amazing, mind numbing and surreal that the republicans are running on a change platform borrowed from Obama to storm their own castle??!! Repub chant...."We suck, We Suck but NOW Were Different." This cranky guy cant even operate the internet to read your opinion. But change is coming......ya right like what more trickle down economics, fear mongering, politicizing 9/11 and questioning patriotism? Privatizing anything and everything to line the pockets of your friends? Lying repeatedly to the American people, 3 TRILLION in debt and POOF! A new republican party!!!! transformed from the last eight years and catapulted into the future! Yippeee like Slim Pickens riding the bomb through the sky in Dr Strangelove. Hello Joe McCarthy is that you? Mr. McCarthy would be proud. So would David Blaine. Abracadabra!!

Here are just some of the examples of why and how McCain has sold his soul, flip-flopped to garner conservative support, and lost all credibility in terms of his “straight talk” moniker. If completely reversing and changing your mind about issues, sometimes in a span of 24 hours, is straight talk, I guess McCain is straight up kooky.
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” He also praised the George W. Bush administration's handling of the crisis. His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. On time tables for withdrawal - Republican John McCain, in a speech forecasting what the country would look like after his first term in office, said May 15th that he expects the war in Iraq to be won and most troops to be home by January 2013. The prediction marks a major departure for McCain, who railed against rival Mitt Romney shortly before the Florida primary for his remark in April 2007 that he thought President Bush and Iraqi leaders should privately discuss a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. At the time, McCain suggested that the comment would embolden America's foes in Iraq. The Arizona senator leveled the same criticism at Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, stating that their advocacy for withdrawing troops from Iraq amounted to setting a date for "surrender."
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying homosexual marriage should be allowed, to saying homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as well as Pastor John Hagee as “agents of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the men who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks, Katrina was God’s punishment on us for homosexuality, and that the catholic church was the “great wh*re”
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February 2008
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain flip-flops on Hamas-
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another," he said at the time. "And I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice ...
"But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
January 2006 – John McCain
Then in May 2008 McCain labels himself Hamas’s “Worst nightmare” and vows to never negotiate with Hamas.
Here are just some of the examples of why and how McCain has sold his soul, flip-flopped to garner conservative support, and lost all credibility in terms of his “straight talk” moniker. If completely reversing and changing your mind about issues, sometimes in a span of 24 hours, is straight talk, I guess McCain is straight up kooky.
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” He also praised the George W. Bush administration's handling of the crisis. His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. On time tables for withdrawal - Republican John McCain, in a speech forecasting what the country would look like after his first term in office, said May 15th that he expects the war in Iraq to be won and most troops to be home by January 2013. The prediction marks a major departure for McCain, who railed against rival Mitt Romney shortly before the Florida primary for his remark in April 2007 that he thought President Bush and Iraqi leaders should privately discuss a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. At the time, McCain suggested that the comment would embolden America's foes in Iraq. The Arizona senator leveled the same criticism at Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, stating that their advocacy for withdrawing troops from Iraq amounted to setting a date for "surrender."
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying homosexual marriage should be allowed, to saying homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as well as Pastor John Hagee as “agents of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the men who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks, Katrina was God’s punishment on us for homosexuality, and that the catholic church was the “great wh*re”
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February 2008
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain flip-flops on Hamas-
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another," he said at the time. "And I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice ...
"But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
January 2006 – John McCain
Then in May 2008 McCain labels himself Hamas’s “Worst nightmare” and vows to never negotiate with Hamas.
GIANT FLIP-FLOPPER!!!!


Posted by: feastorafamine | September 12, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

A vote for McCain / Palin is a vote for BODY BAGS! Great idea Sarah, lets go to war with Russia!

Posted by: tt | September 12, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Chavez, Putin and the Iran president are laughing at McCain, getting pushed around by a bunch of women. What a weenie.

Posted by: Chico Marx | September 12, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"Wwhen Obama & Michelle were on the view they were treated like gods. What bias they showed today..."
************************************

Yeah, somebody put a gun to McCain's head and made him go on The View. LOL.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

C'mon Rachel Ray....GET CONTROVERSIAL!

hehehehe

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Voting McCain/Palin. Obama scares the hell out of me because he acts like he is above me.

Posted by: Joe G. PA
***********************************

Yeah, how could anybody be above you?

By the way, do you think that you are qualified to be President of the United States? I want somebody more qualified than me to be president.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

McCain deserves to be challenged about ads that contain lies, and Obama should be put to the same scrutiny. Questions by the media about unethical tactics on both sides might help to clean up the sludge pit that characterizes U.S. politics.

Too bad that the America media doesn't emulate 'The View' more fully. And both sides-- not just the GOP-- should be monitored.

As for McCain's prowess at the grill: if he doesn't win the election, he may have a future on the Food Network.

Posted by: ANetliner | September 12, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Wwhen Obama & Michelle were on the view they were treated like gods. What bias they showed today. Barbara, Joy, & Whoopi had no respect for McCain. And the slave comments by Whoopi were so typical. Shock value that's what she was going for.

Posted by: hockeymominpa | September 12, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Dale: I didn't call you a liar. I said you were either mistaken OR made it up. I'm open to the possibility that you were just mistaken, rather than deliberately lying. However, as the facts show your claim to be inaccurate, it has to be one or the other.

And as for the facts, I have checked them. I've even read the full text and history of the actual bill on the Illinois General Assembly website, www.ilga.gov. The facts on factcheck.org, politifact.com, here on the WP, etc., etc., are accurate. And McCain's ad... is not.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The View does fluff. When Michelle Obama was on the show all she got was softball questions designed to allow her to build up The One. I don't know if Obama himself was on the show, but if he was, I'm sure the hosts were eager little cheerleaders. Now McCain goes on and suddenly these bubble heads are journalists? John - Sarah - why bother? The Hollywood Liberals are never going to give you a fair shake. Run commercials and appear at town forums. Don't give there shallow spin artists a chance to debase you to the level of their new God.

Posted by: why do it | September 12, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

The democratic platform suggests that it's the right of all women to have abortions whether they can pay or not. Well at least it was something like that. I just read the thing. 56 pgs. Does that mean the government is going to pay for abortions? I have to admit having a child and hearing that ultrasound really has made me question my younger years pro-choice opinion but my thought is it was legal on a privacy over life issue not something the govt. promotes. I keep seeing people cheering whenever Roe v. Wade is mention and it kind of creeps me out. I don't want women or doctors being criminalized but I don't think those people who are pro-life being evil. I thought the View host were very disrespectful to Sen. McCain. The slavery comment was stange. It would seem that slavery was exceptable because we treated people as if they were less than human. To rationalize our actions. Sort of like what we are doing with abortion by not acknowledging that is a human life. Just a thought.

Posted by: somecommonsense | September 12, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Barbara Walter and Joy Behar are out to get McCain. This is such a biased show. Why do ABC and its viewers even bothered with it?
Obama is such a hypocrite. It is all about his tongue and how he use it to gliss everything.
Why do the view not investigate the $ 1 billion earmarks?
Why do they not investigate the housing violations at the 11 housing projects of Obama's contributor, Rezko...in Obama's constituency?
Why do they not find out about the $300,000 discount Obama got because of Rezko buying the lot next door?
Why do they investigate the earmarks that goes to Michelle Obama?
Why do they not question why Obama sits through 20 years of hateful and racist messages in "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's church?

Posted by: fencer1 | September 12, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Voting McCain/Palin. Obama scares the hell out of me because he acts like he is above me.

Posted by: Joe G. PA | September 12, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

cary,

i dont mean to be rude but what has made obama outstanding, cus im afraid i dont see it.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

McCain knows very little about his runningmate; he met her once and then a second time to tell her she was his "choice for VP"!! She is under investigation for gross misuse of power; he family got supeonaed today to testify, it was considered, "BREAKING NEWS"!! McCain failed to properly vet his pick. That woman has a broad, oversized chin and jaw, and huge calves, she'd make a better lineback than a candidate for high office. McCain seems to be entralled with her "butt", spends a good part of his time on stage staring at it!! Cindy, you are likely to become the scorned #2 Mrs. McCain. Afterall, didn't McCain announce to the world that she (Palin) "is my partner and my soulmate!"?? Sounds like talk from a lover and not candidate!!

Posted by: NinaK | September 12, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

John McCain has apparently decided facts don't matter. Up can be down; down can be up. The truth is relative. If you're called on it, so what? Sounds a lot like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If facts are inconvenient, change them, refuse to acknowledge them. Haven't we had enough of leaders who lie regularly to the public?

Posted by: wesfromGA | September 12, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is an outstanding American.

So is Barak Obama. Not for the same reasons but outstanding just the same.

I'm not against John McCain, just the party.

Posted by: Cary | September 12, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Can someone help me? I think I left my car at the bottom of this river. nothing important in it....

Posted by: Ted from Mass | September 12, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

President McCain is an outstanding American. Vice President Palin too. Perhaps the liberal party should consider nominating someone with a little experience next election.

Posted by: An American | September 12, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Regarding John Kerry's first marriage, there was an insinuation by a previous post that Kerry's marriage ended exactly the same way as McCain's. Kerry's marriage ended in 1988 after a 6-year separation from his wife. I can locate no information indicating that Kerry cheated on his first wife prior to his eventual marriage to Theresa Heinz. His first wife did remarry. Apparently, severe depression was a medical condition under which the first wife suffered. It is my understanding that one of the key religious right preachers is also divorced from his wife of many years because of a similar condition, and perhaps adultery.

To impugn Kerry with no evidence is to slander him. Have we no shame?

Posted by: EarlC | September 12, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

> It's strange: the liberal are really sarcastic and attempt to destroy McCain by mentioning his first marriage. BUT they never mention Obama's great supporter Senator Kennedy who [...]

Probably because Kennedy is not running for office, but McCain is? And Kennedy isn't pretending to be a great champion of morality, but McCain is?

I honestly wouldn't vote for Mr. Kennedy, anyhow. But neither will I vote for McCain.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

– Sen. John McCain said this, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

Posted by: josh | September 12, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Get used to saying President McCain and Vice President Palin. Main steam America has as much distain for loud has been actors and news people as The View folks have for McCain and Palin. Why do liberals always seem to be so angry? They always seem to be the ones to whine and moan. Behar and Goldberg have the intellect of a tree frog.

Posted by: CR | September 12, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

> For, Obama is the sort of political leader who gains power by appealing to people's emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is manipulative and dangerous; preying on the naiveté of the younger generation and the lack of insight of those who should know better but don’t, is Obama’s strategy to attract voters.

Well, it was McCain who made up a perverted advertisement that was completely false. For some reason, he doesn't want to protect children from sexual predators. Every single reputable newspaper has called him wrong on that. Furthermore, popularity isn't demagoguery, but putting out false and perverted advertisements may qualify in this instance.

Also, why did you stick so many commas in there for no reason? Are you trying to sound like William Shatner?

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

How do you become a candidate for 'reform' or change when you have been part of the problem for the last 8 years?

The Republican Party (as a whole) has been in power 6 of the last 8 years (with a two term Republican president residing).

McCain voted with Bush over 90 percent of the time and he is another Republican that needs to be reformed (like vote him out of the Senate, period).

Palin accepted endorsements (from Ted Stevens, another Republican), money, earmarks, etc.. during her term(s) as mayor and governor. She has also abused her power as governor for a personal matter.


This idea of being a reformer is great but your party is the sitting party that needs to be reformed (a resume that includes being a POW and a hockey mom just doesn't do it for me).

Real change is needed.

An American

Posted by: ssanford00 | September 12, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

On the view McSame showed himself to truely be the lying pig and Palin indeed the lipstick. Oh wait that was his wife. McSame has to cut taxes. If he raised taxes on his ol lady he'd probably never get any again.

Posted by: JanD | September 12, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 7:29 PM

deny and call liars, yep, your a democrat.

gj with facts plz start checking them.

as for liberal and proud of it,

in my experience democrats and republicans are different because they approach problems differently.

a republican often faces a problem with a preconceived notion of status, for example "a politician is a politician". and therefore must prove the republican wrong to change thier mind. those that dont remain boxed in a stereotype. this is good because it is a harsh barrier to overcome, whilst at teh same time it often makes a person indifferent to the republican simply dismissing them as ignorant because they have no desire to clear thier stereotype.

a democrat comes to the table with no expectations, and as a result learns about what a person wants them to learn about.
the good in this is that they dont come off as offensive, but they can often be hoodwinked by classical lines and traditional hooplah.

both are valid ways to attack problems, but both have thier obvious faults.

generally, tho not always, democrats are people who are focused on the issues that will make them happy, lower taxes for the lower classes, and more payed programs they dont have to pay for. whilst republicans are more focused on the idea of fiscal conservation, beleiving that "liberal" concepts are for the individual to act on in thier daily life (ie, helping people out who are less fortunate, volunteering etc).

obviously there are exceptions to the rule (case in point for the republican side bush whose fiscal policys are comparable only to democrats)

perhaps someone more invested in democrats might be able to suggest a democrat who doesnt follow that policy.

anyways, theres a reason that 18-35 year olds are obamas base and 40+ are mccains. people stop valueing thier own personal issues when they realize that if everyone pursued thier own personal issues no one would get anything done ever. (which is one of the reasons earmarks started because its nearly impossible to get a state budget bill through without being attached to legislation someone else cares about). its often called a mid-life crises. but none the less we have a bit of a boom in the younger generation and not so boom in the older.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

It's strange: the liberal are really sarcastic and attempt to destroy McCain by mentioning his first marriage. BUT they never mention Obama's great supporter Senator Kennedy who, while married to another woman, went partying, got drunk, drove off a bridge, leaving the young lady he was having an affair with in the water to die while he ran away. AND to top it off, he was never put in jail as the average Joes are placed in prison. Funny, huh?

Posted by: Truthhurts | September 12, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I totally congratulate the View for telling John McCain he is lying!!! Yeah!! News media, fact check, etc. All claim McCain lying. I am a white college educated medical professional woman who just retired.

I have followed this race closely!! As a Registered Republican I feel I can fairly say - my own party is running the dirtiest campaign I have ever seen. John McCain lies rampantly. His TV ads are lies! Then Sarah Palin entered and I was excited. Big disappointment - how could she join with more lies?? This is such an opportunity for a woman. As a woman I am ashamed of her. I see no honor, no integity, no high moral character!!

I have decided Obama - Biden!!

Posted by: Sharon | September 12, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

McCain is my Senator. I've always been a registered Republican and I've always voted for him, until now. He has changed. I don't know this man any more.

He's voting against the immigration bill he wrote. He denounced torture before he supported it. He denounced his own running mate's earmarks before he chose her.

Apparently it's weird to to study bear DNA, but normal to spend 2 million studying crabs having sex. Read the budget yourself if you don't believe me [1]. And it's "disrespectful" and "sexist" to point out that someone only stopped supporting the Bridge to Nowhere because it was a political embarrassment. John McCain, of course, being the guardian of chivalry having become famous for the joke "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Janet Reno is her father!" (See also [2]).

While he once railed against political phonies, it's now "elitist" to insist upon the truth. In truth, McCain has become one of the phonies he used to hate.

I can't vote for McCain any more. I don't know which person I would be casting my vote in favor of. The new McCain or the old one? He now says his campaign is about "change." That much is true. He's changed his campaign theme so much I don't remember them all. And he's changed from a man of integrity into a man so desperate for victory at any cost that he not only hired Rove's students, he hired the very man who started the ugly rumors about his adopted child being illegitimate.

Would a good parent hire someone who viciously attacked their children?

-----
Proof that I'm not just making all this up:

[1] http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/FFY09%20Summary%20of%20Fed%20Request.pdf

[2] http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

BASEMENTFROG; You really have missed your calling. You should definitely be working for National Enquirer or one of those trash magazines. You are good at wild tales.

Posted by: George | September 12, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

intcamd1, I think I like you, but I tend to be skeptic of people that turn from being liberal to conservative because of disappointment over a campaign. A liberal becomes a liberal because of ideals not because of what other people do or say.

Posted by: liberal and proud of it | September 12, 2008 7:34 PM

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

That's your mistake. You have no clue about the depthof feeling most of us (well, can only speak for me anyway) feel after the primaries.


My biggest dream would be dems win big in Nov in the senate and house races, and Nobama loses a close election and exit polls show the it was the HRC supporters that were the key swing block. Sweet.

Posted by: intcamd1 | September 12, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I think barbara walters is better suited to be Vp than Gov pali,she at least has been there done that and knows what she is talking about

Posted by: donnie | September 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

WAWA Walters should retire. She looks, thinks and acts older than the Roman ruins. She must not have much of a life since she must go on criticising and attempting to destroy people. She's a real b====. Has anyone ever loved this woman?

Posted by: Steve Hillibrand | September 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Don, what a cynic you are. I do not believe in either stretching the truth or making outlandsh statements intended to attact attention.

Outlandish statement: "There are no good public schools in America." Pat Robertson around 1981. Surely he didn't mean it, but he said it. If he believed it, then I guess it must have been so. To me this is when the religious right should have dropped him like a hot potato and saved themselves the big bucks contributed to the 700 Club and CBN. His wealth is now estimated well over $250 million. To my knowledge, he does not contribute a tithe to any church.

To listen to some of the voices of truth, there is no such thing as a moderate or liberal Muslin. However, we depend on such to establish responsible democracies in the Middle East. I guarantee you that the conservative Muslims are predisposed to establish Islamic governments. It would also seem that fundamentalist (religious right) Christians are determined to form a fundamentalist Christian government here. As a Christian, this bothers me more than having an avowed atheist as President. My God allows governments to exist. However, governments established under a banner of religion have had really bad problems historically. The people suffer religious oppression.

If the Democrats stretch the truth on an ad or in a statement, I do not like it. I'll even agree one way or the other when presented all the pertinent evidence that exists. However, there does not seem to be any voice of reason on the right.

It is time for the true statesmen that have no horse in this race to stand up now and form a bipartisan effort to put a stop to the lies. Are they out there? It will take those elected politicians to form a bond for truth. My local Republican rep has bought the lie on the lipstick comment. Of course, she is not a good specimen of truth anyway.

Where are the statesmen? Do we have such? Are the legacies of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln ending this year? Is this the year when the U.S. Constitution is just a document on view in the National Archives and not a living document?

Posted by: EarlC | September 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

loyalamerican, Mcain thought it was wort it...this is not his first time there....

Posted by: liberal and proud of it | September 12, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

HEY BOBSTER.....YOU GUESS THEY DON'T LIKE GUYS THAT DUMP THEIR WIVES FOR OTHER RICH WOMEN. REALLY? HOW ABOUT KERRY?

WHY CAN'T DEMOCRATS BE JEALOUS WITHOUT SHOWING IT? I'M FEELING THE DEMS PAIN....AND I'M ENJOYING IT!

Posted by: Jat | September 12, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

How can McCain sit there and lie about Palin's record? Either (1) he's clueless (i.e., he doesn't know what her record is), which is unforgivable since he chose her as his VP candidate and keeps repeating how "qualified" she is based on her record, or (2) McCain knows her record but is blatantly lying about it. So which is it, John?

Posted by: markiejoe | September 12, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Who in the world watches The View, a group of malcontent women who could never get their lifes in order and now they criticise everyone who knows how. They are the ones who did not have successful marriages, and probably had lots of crisis in their sex lives. They are absolutely pathetic and shameful. We must really feel sorry for their sorry lifes.

Posted by: loyalamerican | September 12, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

intcamd1, I think I like you, but I tend to be skeptic of people that turn from being liberal to conservative because of disappointment over a campaign. A liberal becomes a liberal because of ideals not because of what other people do or say.

Posted by: liberal and proud of it | September 12, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Dale: I know a thing or two about this...

"you can delete and alter your website from the cache"

No, you can't. We're talking about Google's cache here, not your local computer's cache. You can delete and edit locally cached pages all you like, but you can't edit Google's cache. Google's cache of any page is how that page looked at the time Google indexed it. You can't just change that. You can't edit it. You can only do one thing: edit your page and wait for Google to re-index and re-cache your page.

However, Google's caches are time-stamped (as I mentioned) so you can tell when it was indexed. As I mentioned, the factcheck.org cache on Google was from yesterday, 00:00:33 GMT - not long after the page went up. It is not possible for factcheck.org to have edited that cache.

So there's just no way you had a picture of that page with the statement you claim on it (well, unless you took a screenshot and then edited it in Photoshop or similar, or saved the page, edited it, and took a screenshot). The factcheck page itself never said what you claimed it did. You were either mistaken, or you made that up.

I think we're done now.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

PUMA, cougars, pit bulls....we have the whole zoo here.

Posted by: liberal and proud of it | September 12, 2008 7:25 PM

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

Ahh, but you forgot the most important of them all - Nob worshipping groupie gutter RATs

Posted by: intcamd1 | September 12, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse


Liberal women are sad. Their only real ambition is to be a bimbo for JFK or Bill.

Pamela Anderson has become the face of liberal feminism.

Posted by: julia | September 12, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

PUMA, cougars, pit bulls....we have the whole zoo here.

Posted by: liberal and proud of it | September 12, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse


"woman"

you sound hypocritical and selfish.Abortion is not an issue with you because you are post menopaused?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

To the guy asking why so many neocons here on this site - well, I was a formerliberaland damnedproudofit guy, but am a disgusted PUMA now, and I am sure in your eyes, I am a neocon. SO be it.

In my eyes, all the Obama supporters are groupie gutter rats, who are just sickening. Y'all claim to be liberal, but you sat silently or even cheered when NObama used his racist and sexist cards to trash HRC; and now, you just get kicks everytime the media prostitutes like Mo DOwd write one more anti-Hillary diatribes.

So, yes, we formerliberals visit WaPo because it was my former fav newsite, along with NYT, (and now both are meccas for media prostitutes) and we come here out of habit. ANd when I am here, I love to give a piece of my mind to my former comrades that became NOb worshipping groupie gutter rats.

Posted by: intcamd1 | September 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Honor=Obama | September 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: your betters....

Posted by: get on the soul train, get back to nature, nut a conservative... | September 12, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

The abortion issue is important to many women. However, unless people are prepared to actually discuss the issue rationally, it will never be solved. The republicans use the issue as a banner without really offering a realistic solution to the problem. They just use it as fodder in an attempt to gain political advantage.

People need to recognize that it is not merely a theological or moral issue. Economics play a sizable part in the decision as well for many. Universal healthcare or at the very least quality, affordable healthcare would help address the issue more than empty words and rhetoric.

Posted by: SP | September 12, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

gettyleight and her ilk,
Ignore the truth. Ignore the media. Embrace the propaganda. Embrace the lies. Go to Russia, you communist sympathizers.

Listen to Obama's whole presentation where he said, "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." If you still say that he referred to Sarah Palin, then there is no hope for you because you lie through your teeth. I know exactly where you are coming from.

Now, if you agree that Sarah Palin was not for the bridge to nowhere after the clear and convincing evidence has been produced, then I know where you are coming from.

Now, if you say that the adulterous McCain is your man, then I know where you are coming from because you could not accept a repentent Clinton's request for forgiveness. You impeached him.

I pray for my country. I fear that if we cannot come together and bring truth back to politics, we are doomed as a nation. The wealth will inherit America. God will no longer bless America. In fact, his blessing is being removed from us as I type. The religious right has pushed its moral agenda on America with respect to abortion, gays, and so forth. However, the ten commandments are clearly written. Bearing false witness (lying) and stealing (what the government is abetting the wealthy to do) are just two. With respect to God, the religous right has sold their souls to a political party. This is honoring the god of party over the God of the Universe.

There will be a payday one day. I pray that it is not a bloody revolution. However, judging from the heat on this site, can a revolution be in the near future if we cannot decide to start coming together as a people? We have to decide if we are going to be owned and operated by Haliburton and the foul-mouthed spokespeople like Cheney who represent them or be a country of, by, and for the people.

Remember, the free press and search for truth is what distinguishes our country from most other countries in the world. Under Bush, we showed a side of America to the world when we said that dishonoring human rights, dishonesty, and torture are part of our culture. Abu Gureb was one of the darkest marks ever to be placed on our country. President Bush essentially did nothing. Lying about the evidence that forced us to a war of choice was another dark mark.

What surprises me is that Bush's approval rating is still around 30%. It seems like a disconnect is occurring within the same population of people that prefer more of the same by electing McCain.

Posted by: EarlC | September 12, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

my question would be: why there are so many conservative here? I thought that cons see the WP like a lefty bias rug, right?
You never see me on the NYP site interacting with a bunch of neocons, what gives?

Posted by: liberal and proud of it | September 12, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

same tactics to fool the Nation, same as in 204.
You want to see change?
The names are changed, now we have McWar and Pit Bull. But sense is the same - to fool the Nation.

Posted by: Linda, Fl | September 12, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

;-)

and lipstick on a pig is just a metaphor,

old fish doesnt refer to mccain

and 8 years is not a reference to the republican party.

however since you again refuse to hear what i say, and instead twist it for your own definition and "cocky" sake. ill use small words.

you can delete and alter your website from the cache

i never said "google conspired to delete a cache of a secretive underground (make it sound as conspiracy as you like).

try it, make a website alter it, check cache.

but yes, none the less im sure you would "frame the truth" around whatever "facts" you choose to make your point. thats fine, get ahold of me in 4 years, when you have to face who the better candidate is. (saves the winky face for you)

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Maybe McCain picked Sarah Palin because she looks like a linebacker with that wide, heavy, oversized jaw and her bulging calves; he will need her physical strength when he needs her to change his DEPENDS in the Oval Office! Cindy appears too fragile to handle the task.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

You guys crack me up. You will deny the truth and then accuse the other side of lying. What hypocrites. Its POLITICS dont you see that? They both stretch the truth to position themselves right, its the game that been played for hundreds of years, yet you think this is totally new. How naive and pathetic. Keep parsing the nuances all you want, election day will reveal who the real americans will chose as their leader and one of your sides will surly cry foul once again....

Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

You know what? I don't care that is she supported the bridge or not, or if she wanted earmarks for her state or not. I suspect few people care about those things, so making a big issue out of them is just stupid. My questions are, does she have some common sense? Is she a quick study? Is she adaptable and flexible? My bigger questions are, will the team in the white house (whoever that may end up being) surround themselves with competent people who will help them make good decisions? Because let's face it, the President is only as good as his advisors. McCain's age does not really bother me. Has anyone seen his 96 year old mother? She's in better shape than the average 50 year old. So he has good genes and likely will live a good long time. And age and experience are good things. He certainly has a very presidential persona. And I find him to be trustworthy. Just a gut feeling, but that is what Obama has to counter. My mind is not made up, but talking about a bridge to nowhere or alaskan earmarks is not going to change my mind. It does not bother me that Palin is right of center. Abortion stopped being an issue for me years and year ago.

Posted by: a woman | September 12, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama's against the war in Iraq with 4000 casualties.

But he is for the war on children which has produced 45 million babies deaths since 1973.

Women on the view are all for terrorist rights....but to heck with their babies right to live.

The view will keep debating the constitutional rights of terrorists at Guantanomo Bay Cuba, They are very hypocritical to say the least.

Posted by: Steven Wilson | September 12, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

i will go back to my country if mr.mcCon becomes president of this great country and there's the great depression again.we can't afford to put this men in office,what happens if this men past away?

Posted by: brooklyn ghost | September 12, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

So, Dale, you're claiming that factcheck.org stated that the claim (that they currently, and yesterday, said was 'simply false') was actually true - despite it being false - and that not only have they edited their site to remove it, but they've also got Google to edit their cache of the page as well?

Yeah, I'm going to take a pass on believing you on that one. Particularly since I actually first read the article shortly after it went up and it didn't say it then either.

Note also that I haven't called anyone 'cocky, arrogant, racist, and having hubris'. That was you (see the first line of your post). Please don't confuse yourself with me again, I find it insulting. ;-)

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Pilan lie when they deny they lied and will lie again that they lied when they denied they lied.

My son watched John McCain on TV for a few minutes and asked me if John McCain was having a mortician practice make-up applications on his (John McCain's) face. He thinks, as do I, John McCain has already acquired the mask of death....even that flat, stretched lips so-called grin he "flashes" looks like the smile of a corpse. Watching John McCain is like watching something from the land of the dead!!

Posted by: NinaK | September 12, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"McCain Gets an Earful on 'The View'"

Man!!!!!! I wouldn't be in his shoes (maybe I would literaly because his shoes cost my weekly paycheck).
I AM SURE HE LOVES WOMEN SINCE BARBARA WALTERS AND THE REST OF THE CREW ON 'THE VIEW' ROASTED HIM PRETTY BAD. OOOUUUCH, THAT MUST HAVE HURT, RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS WIFE AND LIVE TV. I GUESS THEY DON'T LIKE GUYS THAT DUMP THEIR WIVES FOR OTHER RICH WOMEN.

Posted by: BOBSTER | September 12, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

dale sayeth, "i guess the fact that i voted for kerry in 04 kinda destroys that logic eh?"

uh, no. What you claim to have done, and what you actually did, is open to question. After reading all the garbage and lies that you have written on these very boards for the past few weeks, one can only surmise that your "honesty" is questionable. To disprove my assertion would require a person to accept your honesty as fact. You have aptly demonstrated that your honest is not something to be taken for granted. Race war indeed. Come, my Klansman, please come clean.

Posted by: the_Dude | September 12, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Someone wrote: "It angers me to no end when McCain uses what is essentially scare tactics"

And what is Obama doing with his "be afraid of losing your abortion rights commercials"?

Scaring the woman vote so he can keep them as second class citizens.

I see more "scare tactics" coming from Obama than McCain.

Posted by: DWoman Democrat for McCain/Palin | September 12, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

For all of the McCain supporters that know what is right, go to factcheck.org. I imagine you'll not scroll down each page to look at the full explanation of each point.

When I hear Palin say that she supported the bridge to no where and when she said, "Thanks but no thanks to the birdge to nowhere," I can only surmise that she lied.

I feel sorry for the children growing up in the many houses where the parents are obviously supporting candidates who lie. The prospects for a future in an America where honesty is a virtue is fast coming to a close.

I am becomming more convinced than ever the the religious right would never recognize the anti-Christ because they stand up for the big liars now. Not only this, they are standing tall for sarcasm, slander, ridicule, greed, racism, sexism, and so forth. As my Bible says that when we continue to crucify Christ, no sacrifice remains for sin. (See Hebrews.)

This group that has no idea what the Golden Rule means is leaving us a legacy of sure destruction.

"Surge" Surely you jest. Over 140,000 soldiers still in Iraq watching the military slowly die in a country half a world away. Afghanistan with 103 American deaths to date this year, the highest since the war started there.

McCain says the surge is a success. His success will go for years with a large number of soldiers in Iraq. Bush's "Major combat operations are over" has lasted at least 4 years now. I ask, "When is a success a success?" To listen to McCain, there is no definite definition for it because the troops cannot come home.

Posted by: EarlC | September 12, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, the people of the Obama Temple have become comfortable with the practice of demagoguery. For, Obama is the sort of political leader who gains power by appealing to people's emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is manipulative and dangerous; preying on the naiveté of the younger generation and the lack of insight of those who should know better but don’t, is Obama’s strategy to attract voters. Change is not necessarily always a good thing, especially when it administers the medicine of socialism. Thomas Sowell, a distinguished authority on economics, once said “socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Obama’s, unquestioned flattery and praise, is evocative of another socialistic demagogue, he is just as mesmerizing as Jim Jones, who dazzled the members of the “Peoples Temple” in 1978 at a little place called Jonestown, Guyana; the revolution they experienced there was “revolutionary suicide.” If the Obamabots keep on drinking the “flavor aid,” spiked by this spellbinding “cult of personality,” the freedoms and protections we all cherish so much, will go the way of the 909 people who committed suicide with the cyanide laced grape drink; our liberties will be just like the spirit of those people, and the essence of the 276 children among them. The fundamental nature of our liberties will vanish into the thin air, just as the prototypical souls of those who deified the false idol of the “People’s Temple” 30 years ago. Socialism, at the national level, is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. In the end when all is equal, and socialism fails and the coffers are bare, who will the poor and misfortunate people lean on then?

Posted by: gettyleigh | September 12, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 6:26 P

had to respond, its in my nature when a person is as cocky as you :).

you obviously dont understand how teh senate works, spondering bills is a means of applying a bill to a senator so that the bill has a means of getting on the floor, without a sponser bills die before congress.

however pushing a bill is completely different because it requires a person to stand up and present an argument as to why the bill is worth passing (or at least convincing enough to keep it from failing in obamas case).

as for the picture of the website, if you can learn to read a sentence please. "i had the picture this morning" not the website said it this morning.

but thats completely besides the point when you realize that you can delete and alter archived history (such as when the democratic party official website had the article stating "obama calls palin pig", which you can also find on michelle malkins blog".

but enjoy calling people cocky, arrogant, racist, and having hubris, while you sit on your high horse with no facts :D.

(sarcasm disclaimer)

LETS VOTE FOR 4 MORE YEARS OF FISCAL NON-CONSERVATION!!!!! WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO AMERICA OR BUST, LITERALLY.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

MCain and Palin are a breath of fresh air even while b berated by Barbara the extreme liberal Walters. I think he deserves credit for showing up on the View. Did they ask Obama what his taxes on my bosses company would do to my wages, or the price of our product? Did she ask Barack why he voted present instead of defining his stance on important issues? Did she ask Michelle about her signed letters to NOW about fighting the extremist who are trying to end partial birth abortion?

McCain is transparent because he votes based on principles, and lets us know where he stands. Liberals need to let go of all the anger. We don't eat grandparents with the broth of children like they portray. We have families, and we want our children to go to college with a scholarship, or subsidized loans if needed.

Please understand one fact; The dollar is related to the size of our government. If the government grows the strength of our dollar decreases along with the outside investment. If our investment, and private sector grows our dollar grows.

Posted by: Drizzit | September 12, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

McCAIN AND FAMILY VALUES

The Planned Parenthood ad turns a perverted attack on its head, asking why McCain objects to protecting toddlers.

"Every eight minutes a child is sexually abused. That's why Barack Obama supported legislation to teach children how to protect themselves," a female narrator says in it.

"Now John McCain is twisting the facts and attacking Sen. Obama. Doesn't McCain want our children to protect themselves from sex offenders? Or after 26 years in Washington is he just another politician who'll say anything to get elected?"

Does McCain, like Tom DeLay, support child abuse? Why is he attacking legislation with the purpose of protecting our kids? Is the a ploy to protect his republican friends like Idaho senator Larry Craig?

What are McCain’s views on pedophilia?

BOOZE FOR KIDS

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.

MARRIAGE

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 during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘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. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been 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 are less forgiving, however. They 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.


Posted by: basementfrog | September 12, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Derek - are you Dale in disguise?

"Yet, Barack Obama wants to slash our defense spending like we live on Planet Utopia."

Funny. Because he's said he wants to INCREASE 'the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops', and he's said we need GREATER investment in 'advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.'

That's not exactly slashing defense like we live on Planet Utopia is it?

"And yes - Barack Obama clearly voted to teach sex education to kindergarteners - the bill is explicit and he explicitly and clearly supported it."
Yes, it has explicit phrases like "course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate." Which part of that don't you understand?

The aim with younger children was to allow them to be taught to 'recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles'. Do you really object to that?

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

emptyness of whitehouse "code pinkers"

looking to play hide the salaami with the theif in chief


as the nation crashes...

arrest and prosecute them.


.

Posted by: the | September 12, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is Barack Obama’s biggest supporter. That is why McCain is running.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

is a hole looking to get filled...


he represents unadulterated fraud.

.

Posted by: John McCain | September 12, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Mccain is lucky hes gonna loose the general election, history would of looked on the bush family with some respect if George bush had lost :

Posted by: hatefulgladiatorgoing4tbag | September 12, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: please al Quearboyz spend the night at the bush "LIPS" shyyytehouse.... | September 12, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Slogan Time:

McCain ain't Abel, keep him out of the stable.

Posted by: Slogan Time | September 12, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Dale wrote: “im off to learn more and expand my intelligence for hte next slanderous bias post in obamas mechanical news machine.”

More power to you Dale. Your taking on a big job. Better get started. Good lick to you, who knows you may be able to make some progress, yet. Why not start with English 101?

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I suppose we can't use the name Bush anymore, right?

Posted by: There is no anonymous anymore | September 12, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Dale: "cosponsor is a title simply to attach a bill to a senator, it has no official value in actually pushing a bill through. but nice try"

If a bill he DID cosponsor doesn't count as an accomplishment, then a bill he DIDN'T sponsor or cosponsor - like the one the McCain ad claims is Obama's accomplishment - CERTAINLY doesn't count as an accomplishment.

Nice try though. ;-)

"and if i can find the pre-edited version of the factcheck site that i had earlier this morning ill send you teh screenshot of them stating that the statements are accurate on it :)."

I'm looking at the google cache of that page at the factcheck site right now (just google the URL and click 'cached'). It's from yesterday, 00:00:33 GMT. There's no such statement there either.

Nice try though. ;-)

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

The real John McCain stood up today on "The View." He answered Chris Matthews questions that he asked some Republican operatives last night on "Hardball." McCain is now the liar-in-chief. It will be a sad day if this guy makes it to the White House. If he does, I'll just let the right-wing complain when they run headon into one of his lies.

There is no need to tell them "I told you so." They have stood us down on every lie that McCain and Palin have said. We know that McCain has no principles. This goes way back to his first marriage and his return from Vietnam. The handwriting is on the wall for all to see. Elect McCain-Palin and kiss our country goodbye. This is not being cynical. God does not like liars. He hates those who bear false witness. He hates adulterers.

As they say, "the religious right is neither."

Posted by: Earl C | September 12, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain states why a mayor/governor is not as qualified as he is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-last-year-mayors-a_n_125944.html

Palin claims she is the outsider reform Washington needs.

So. Are Palin and McCain FOR each other, or AGAINST each other.

There is a rule. When we don't speak the truth and insist in speaking a lot, eventually our lies will be exposed.

As has been the case over the past two weeks.

Shame on people that want to lead our country who demonstrate they lack honesty and integrity.

Where is their accountability?

Posted by: There is no anonymous anymore | September 12, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Just when it looked like we might be going back into the reality-based world, Republicans are taking us back into the world of make-believe. As an anonymous Bush staffer (probably Karl Rove) told a reporter early in the Bush Presidency, "we make reality." Within the bubble that contains the American public and its toothless watchdog media it can work for a while, until the next cycle of reality smacks us upside the head. Our country is heading for a fall equal to or worse than the great depression.

Posted by: Chuck | September 12, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The american media has been acting as the Democrats propaganda machine. They were never this hard on Obama or on the Clintons. They don't report the news, they try to make it. I see right through this. I am finished with the Democrats and most media outlets!!!

Posted by: hammer | September 12, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Many of the comments I've read here are absolutely ridiculous.

Many of you people do not have a clue about our nation, the world and its history or much less your fellow Americans.

The fact is, John McCain is absolutely the most qualified individual running for president this year (perhaps going back quite a few years). The alternative is disconcerting, to say the least.

The women on the View are unbelievably ignorant of the world and our great nation. Many of the comments made by them and the questions that they asked clearly illustrate this.

When I view Barack Obama give a three-minute litany of everything he would cut in terms of defense, I have to wonder if is on a different planet.

The last time I checked, there were millions out there who want to slit our throats and kill our loved ones without thinking about it. Yet, Barack Obama wants to slash our defense spending like we live on Planet Utopia.

I can think of no other who I would choose to stare down the Russians, Al-Queda or anyone else than John McCain; it's not even a contest.

And yes - Barack Obama clearly voted to teach sex education to kindergarteners - the bill is explicit and he explicitly and clearly supported it.

I cannot imagine how voting for such a bill can be defended in the least.

Posted by: Derek - Cold War veteran | September 12, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"The View" women are rich, so they can afford to turn up their nose to WORKING WOMEN. Afterall we can't watch their show and make them richer -- so they are not beholden to us or our struggles.

It is time for ALL women to unite based on their gender alone for ONE cause - equal opportunity. Say ENOUGH to sexual discrimination and prejudice. Vote for real CHANGE - vote Mccain/Palin '08!

Posted by: Women for Palin | September 12, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: take them down to the river and put them to justice.... | September 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

the thing i find ironic to the core tho, is that 3 supposed "barack supporters" are focused on aiding a liberally biased newspaper by frantically searching forums and wikipedia/factcheck for various refutes to statements.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/12/whoopi-to-mccain-do-you-want-me-to-be-a-slave-again/

while a "lying mccain supporter" is the only one suggesting people read teh whole article and check the unbiased websites for information. not once did i say vote for mccain, i simply said check the facts.

anyways i feel ive done my job, providing links to the full story, and laughing in the face of people who can only cry wolf.

p.s. its humorous to watch the polls go down so severly for barack.

R I P
barack hussein obama's political career.

im off to learn more and expand my intelligence for hte next slanderous bias post in obamas mechanical news machine.

perhaps if he gets elected he will run the government the same way as the post, omitting the facts that change the story completely.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Way to go, Girls!! As for McCain and Palin, watch out cause were coming!! You say the dems are scared, I say McCain's scared!! Just look at who he nominated for his VP. That's the best ya got!! There was no one else, huh? "Country First, Country First!!" -Hmm, you better sell something else, were not buying. "Change Agent for Country First!!" -Hmm, that the best you got?

McCain can't even defend himself on the issues, that's why they have those ad's out. Ha!! You think the dems are scared, give me a break! McCain's defense for the ad's, Obama wouldn't join his town meeting, poor baby...So, integrity is thrown out the window because he couldn't get what he wanted, class act. When you remove the patriot cloak McCain surrounds himself with, tell me, what do you see?? GEORGE BUSH!! Dems aren't scared, your candidate is....

Posted by: Shannon | September 12, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it ironic that the current polling numbers for McCain and Palin equals is exactly the same as the estimated number of idiots in the United States?

Posted by: InTheDetails | September 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

You people are missing the point, (especially this reporter, who wrote this with apparent glee). SARAH HAS CHANGED THE RULES.

THE MORE YOU PEOPLE BEAT UP ON THE MCCAIN / PALIN TICKET THE MORE YOU HELP THEM.

As usual the whacked out shrill sirens on the view sounded and looked like whacked out shrill sirens. McCain looked and acted presidential in the face of all the ugly henpecking.

NET RESULT: AMERICA DESPISES YOU HOLLYWOOD, LIBERAL, MEDIA PROPOGANDISTS AND MCCAIN / PALIN LOOK A WHOLE LOT MORE ATTRACTIVE.

YOU REALLY ARE SCREWING THINGS UP FOR OBAMA FOLKS... KEEP IT UP

Posted by: TonyV1 | September 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like McBush doesnt even know anything about his running mate.....

She never requested Earmarks....YES SHE DID she was the first to ever get them as mayor by hiring a lobbyist, and has requested the most per capita of any other state as governor...more of the same

She was against the bridge to nowhere...NO SHE WASNT.....it just became unpopular after she became governor so she dropped it....but she still kept the money that the government gave to build a road to an empty shore where the project could be continued at a later time

she thinks global warming is not man-made and does not beleive in equal rights for gays.....

Bush-McCain-Palin.....4 more years of the same

Posted by: Oregon4Obama | September 12, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: the re_thug_licans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple... | September 12, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, what is this? “They can all get on a boat with Oprah and head to some other country they'd like better. How about Germany, for starters?”

Isn’t that the old “America, love it or leave it” argument? That is just dumb.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

It angers me to no end when McCain uses what is essentially scare tactics and has a attitude and policy that screams "if your not with us, your not patriotic". Those symbols and messages are rampant in his campaign, such as the "country first" message at the RNC, as if the republican party has a exlusive right to being a patriot. These same methods reek of both of Bush's campaigns and look where 8 years of that attitude and mentality have gotten us. And if any of you out there think that we are better of now than we were 8 years ago, apparently you are not a member of the middle class.

Posted by: Nick | September 12, 2008 5:52 PM

Same tactics now used by Dems to attack anyone who does not wish to vote for Obama.
Obama critics are now called "racists" and "illiterate", "gun toting, bible thumpers" if they challenge Obama. I wondered where Rove was, he must have moved to the DNC giving Obama supporters lessosn.

Then there is Obama telling people to "lay off my wife" as if we all have lost our first amendment rights to protect Michelle.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 6:07 PM

cosponsor is a title simply to attach a bill to a senator, it has no official value in actually pushing a bill through. but nice try

and if i can find the pre-edited version of the factcheck site that i had earlier this morning ill send you teh screenshot of them stating that the statements are accurate on it :).

but its nice to see your at least trying. you have gained my respect :D, and if we disagree at least your somewhat informed, if not fully.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Republicans always get so nasty and scurrilous when the flop sweat starts pouring down their brows. Dale's a great example. Following his leader's example into pure falsehood.

Liar-Americans, unite! McCain/Palin are clearly your natural leaders!

Posted by: drossless | September 12, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

liam,

if Hussein and his arab history has no affect on the voters why didnt barack admit to voters that he is 43% arab? that his 3 names all speak to arab ancestry?

you make great democratic points, but for the wrong side.

if these things dont matter, why have the democrats gone so far to make them hidden issues.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Dale:

"even your dear beloved factcheck.org states that the ad and all others in question are "TRUE TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS"."

Wrong. No such statement exists. factcheck.org states 'the claim is simply false'. Which it is. Why do you think you an simply make stuff up? Are you applying for a job as a political campaign ad-man? ;-)

"yes obama tried to pass other legislation during that time, but he passed NONE on education save that one."

Wrong, on both counts. That legislation never left state Senate, and Obama wasn't a sponsor or co-sponsor. He voted along party lines for it. He was, however, a cosponsor of the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help all high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition fees assistance, and at the federal level, he sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act.

"the ads are on the television, having passed the test for factuality."

There is no such test.

Are you done yet?

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

From new AP poll:

Eighty percent say McCain, with nearly three decades in Congress, has the right experience to be president. Just 46 percent say Obama, now in his fourth year in the Senate, is experienced enough. Another 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience—an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about Palin, now in her second year as governor after serving as a small-town mayor in her state.

Posted by: WomenAgainstObama | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

From new AP poll:

Eighty percent say McCain, with nearly three decades in Congress, has the right experience to be president. Just 46 percent say Obama, now in his fourth year in the Senate, is experienced enough. Another 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience—an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about Palin, now in her second year as governor after serving as a small-town mayor in her state.

Posted by: WomenAgainstObama | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Who are earth with half a brain cares what any of these twits think about politics or anything else? McCain shouldn't have wasted his time. They can all get on a boat with Oprah and head to some other country they'd like better. How about Germany, for starters?

Posted by: thinkwithyourbrain | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

From new AP poll:

Eighty percent say McCain, with nearly three decades in Congress, has the right experience to be president. Just 46 percent say Obama, now in his fourth year in the Senate, is experienced enough. Another 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience—an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about Palin, now in her second year as governor after serving as a small-town mayor in her state.

Posted by: WomenAgainstObama | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Dale, you sound dumb. Seriously, how does this have to do with slavery?

Just so you all know, the whole world is watching and we really don't want you to F*** this up!!

If McCain is elected then I will lose all faith in America, and Americans.

Posted by: liam | September 12, 2008 5:55 PM

you just made two of my points for me.

1) your opinion or faith in america doesnt make this country great, its informed opinions that do, not anger and cussing.

2) the democrats brought up the slavery debate, so yes we have to ask, WHAT DOES SLAVERY HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ELECTION?

if the democrats brought it up, then obviously its a defining factor as to why they are choosing obama. support for a candidate because of his race? dispicable, only a democrat.

thank you for making my point so candidly :).

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Walters must be getting senile. Barack announced to the whole world in Berlin that he would "remake the world", but no one from the media jumped on that Messiah moment. I also remember the women on the View treating Michelle Obama with kid gloves and making a fuss over her clothing more than anything.
Now I remember why I can't stand to watch this airhead show.

Posted by: Cheryl | September 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

To valandsend and the others who paste the cute little comparison of Teddy Roosevelt to Sarah Palin all over the place, let me add a few more items to your list:

Who am I?

I traveled extensively in Europe and the Middle East.

I graduated from Harvard, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.

I attended Columbia Law, until dropping out to run for NY Assemblyman.

I raised and led a volunteer regiment, the Rough Riders, in the Spanish American War.

On my honeymoon, I led a party to the summit of Mont Blanc, for which I was inducted into the British Royal Society.

I wrote several books, including ones that became standard histories for generations.

I was Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

I was the NYC Police Commissioner.

I was a nationally known progressive and reformer.

I did all of this before being elected to the Vice Presidency.

Who am I?

Hint: I'm sure as heck not Sarah Palin!

Posted by: drossless | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but knowing those screeching freaks are Obama supporters is reason enough not to vote for Obama. Absolutely proof that ABC is out of control.

Posted by: Karen | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

McCain has a hard time dealing with women. But I don't think that matters to him. His way of seeing it is "cheerlead or get out of the way."

Posted by: jchaney | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse


McCain is an utter disgrace. He sat there and lied through his teeth, just like Palin's been lying through her teeth about the bridge to nowhere. These people don't care anymore. Bush showed them the way: just flat out lie -- our base doesn't care, no one reads corrections, and media is too hapless and scared to correct them.

McCain and Palin are simply making sh*t up. And the conservative fanatics on this board could ... care ... less.

Honestly. Can you imagine if Palin became president !!!! She couldn't even handle an interview! She looked so far out of her depth it was embarrassing -- cringe inducing. She sat there robotically parroting the talking points her handlers crammed down her throat, apparently not even knowing what they meant.

I mean, seriously. Vice president? President? She clearly doesn't have a clue about foreign policy. McCAin repeats this laughable thing about Alaska being close to RUssia. I mean, really?

It's bizarro world! And the conservative idiots on this board .. don't ... care.

I guess is the logical conclusion to George Bush. These people don't even pretend anymore. Their side can tell any lie they want , completely wreck the country, and they'll still vote for them..

God help us.

Posted by: Monk | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Liam, you and me both.

Dale is a troll and I skim right past his meaningless posts. Don't waste your time reading them.

Posted by: DDS | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Liam, you and me both.

Dale is a troll and I skim right past his contentless posts. Don't waste your time reading them.

Posted by: DDS | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Pals pandered to Barack Hussein and Michelle Obama,and soon it will be cancelled by ABC! And Good Riddance!" - posted by some dolt.

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

The uneducated and deliberately ignorant shouldn't be allowed to vote. Hussein? If that has anything to do with your reasoning for voting McCain, then you are truly stupid.

That is the opinion of a well informed Canadian.

Posted by: liam | September 12, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Give McCain a "Profile in Courage" award for showing up in the lions' den---even if they were clueless lions.
BTW, Sarah Palin would be happy to due Oprah--if permitted!

Posted by: Aristotle | September 12, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama-yo-mama.

Posted by: Phil | September 12, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Who is right to lead our Country?

Who is wrong to lead our Country?

Does it matter?

What will happen over the next four years?

Will there be CHANGE in DC no matter who is elected?

Why is it ok for one party to offer a Woman candidate and the other party it is looked at as scorn by many?

Who has enough experiance to handle a job that they have never held before?

If one is going to "change" the country or the Government how do they do it in four years?

What is their timeline of change?

As to the changes they are going to make, how do they plan on monitoring them to make sure the changes were actually good ones and that they do not need adjustment?

How are they going to make adjustments to the changes when they get voted out of office before their timeline is completed?

It does not matter who is in office when it comes to change unless there is a Party to help guide the change after that person is gone. Crime is down today because of the Reagan efforts of the 80's, The growth of America over both Bush's and the Golden Boy Clinton was due again to Reagan's policy's...Cold War..you bet...Lets remember folks he was a Dem that got pissed at his Party and went to the Republican side...and changed not only our Country....but the WORLD...you people fighting are like the politicians...you will accomplish nothing...

Posted by: Sean | September 12, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Man this Palin girl sure got in the Dems head BOO

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Dale, you sound dumb. Seriously, how does this have to do with slavery?

Just so you all know, the whole world is watching and we really don't want you to F*** this up!!

If McCain is elected then I will lose all faith in America, and Americans.

Posted by: liam | September 12, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse


RE: Posting by: Manolete
"Country First! "
"McCain/Palin! "

A reasonably minded person may ask how McCain choosing a running mate for politics - a running mate that can help him get elected, but will need on-the-job batism by fire training once in Washington is a decision that is "COUNTRY FIRST"
Riiiight....

Posted by: ddancause | September 12, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

lol hun, even your dear beloved factcheck.org states that the ad and all others in question are "TRUE TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS".

yes obama tried to pass other legislation during that time, but he passed NONE on education save that one. and teh quotes mccain used were from other articles (newspapers etc) that stated teh same thing (but were never attacked by obama).

the ads are on the television, having passed the test for factuality.

the only thing they can possibly lie about is an insinuation, most arguements ive seen go for the pedophelia concept, or simply claim he is lying with no suggestion as to why.

if you can enlighten me with ANY FACTS to disprove it, then go right ahead, but seeing as it would be taken off the air if there was any proof, i wont be holding my breath.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The best thing about the view is that old
has been Barbara Walters and Sister Has
Been at least get paid to make fools out
of theirselves on a daily basis,instead
of entering the nursing home,where they all
belong. Oh God is Walters having a contest
with Mad Madame Speaker Botox Queen Nutso
Nancy Pelosi to see as to who can take the
most botox shots and get the most facelifts
or what? No wonder ABC is losing more and
more viewers every day,since Walters and
Pals pandered to Barack Hussein and Michelle Obama,and soon it will be cancelled by ABC! And Good Riddance!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | September 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Can we stop with the congratulations of Old Man River for going on The View. if you expect to be POTUS, you have to be able to address all constituencies. Much like Obama going to the conference at Saddleback or his recent interview with Bill O'Reilly.

And while we're analyzing OMR's View appearance, can someone finally get him to explain his "If Obama had only agreed to do the 10 town hall meetings with me, the campaign would not have taken this direction". Huh?

Posted by: The Franchise | September 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

When is the media going to be what it is suppose to be - the 4th branch of government - seeking the truth and holding the public officials accountable, instead of seeking to try to sway the American public to agree with their own personal opinions. CNN - we report - you decide - Oh Pulease!

Posted by: Annette | September 12, 2008 5:25 P
_________________________________________
Pleaseeeeee Bush got elect twice, that's 8 yrs. The media help, wake up.
If he can't take the heat don't show up.
The point is the Republican's campaign is based on balatant lies, hide and seek and nothing else.

Posted by: Mille | September 12, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

It angers me to no end when McCain uses what is essentially scare tactics and has a attitude and policy that screams "if your not with us, your not patriotic". Those symbols and messages are rampant in his campaign, such as the "country first" message at the RNC, as if the republican party has a exlusive right to being a patriot. These same methods reek of both of Bush's campaigns and look where 8 years of that attitude and mentality have gotten us. And if any of you out there think that we are better of now than we were 8 years ago, apparently you are not a member of the middle class.

Posted by: Nick | September 12, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

... and enough with "are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?"... These arguments are in many ways pointless... There are so many factors that influence an economy... MOST have nothing to do with who's in office... and I should remind everyone that almost 7 years to date we were attacked and went to war... obviously spending will increase...

Posted by: Ian | September 12, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

Country First!
McCain/Palin!

Posted by: Manolete | September 12, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Kindof sad that it takes the women of the view to ask McCain about his lies. Sorry, I guess the main stream media has to call them "untruths"

I dont know how they let him get away with saying, it would have not gotten to be this bad if he had town hall meetings. So it is Obamas fault that McCain is playing dirty politics, because he would not have town hall meetings? Are you kidding me? What kind of answer is to a question is that. I think Karl Rove himself must of wrote it... trying to change the subject. Really what McCain is saying is I am a scumbag but ofcourse its Obamas fault that I am one.

Posted by: pantsonfire | September 12, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Hear one for you A little education for Owen. 40% of workers in the USA pay no income tax at this time (thanks to Bush). The top 10% of wage earners already pay 70+% of all income taxes. Obama's "tax cuts" are checks that he'll give to workers who already pay no income tax at all - pure wealth redistribution

Posted by: Mike 1962 | September 12, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, the Dems are fighting back. There's a difference between "framing" the truth (see any attorney in a court of law) and flat-out lieing (which will get you disbarred).

Dems frame but Republicans will lie straight to your face without flinching. When you watch Karl Rove explain the difference between Tim Kaine and Sarah Palin without a hint of emotion...well, even I can't believe anyone could be that big of a pathelogical liar.

Posted by: Jackson | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

There's so much talk about how Palin's a "heartbeat away from the presidency" thing, that you should follow through a bit more - what's a Palin & Pelosi mess going to look like?? Isn't that just as critical to the voters' decision as to who HER veep would interact/distract/undermine/compliment a Palin administration?

Posted by: sbald | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

switch from Clinton to Palin is a pure vagina vote

Posted by: va vo voom | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Dale... you've completely lost it. Seriously. Please tell me you're just bored and just trolling for a reaction here. I'd hate to think you're actually serious.

You're claiming that McCain's ad is true, because it doesn't say Obama is a paedophile ('the only way a person can insinuate that mccains add is false, is to insinuate that it calls obama a pedophile,').

What? That's just wrong (on so many levels). The advert is false simply because the facts it claims are false. That legislation wasn't one of Obama's several education-related accomplishments (the ad says 'Obama's one accomplishment'), and it wasn't legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners (the ad says 'Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners.').

This is not hard to grasp. The reason the ad is false is because the things it says are untrue. Nothing to do with insinuating that Obama is a paedophile.

If you don't grasp that, I can only conclude that you're in denial.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

McCain reforming Washington. har har good one. He just wants to add another house to his total.

Posted by: Lester | September 12, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to the women of The View. Their questioning was most pertinent and persistent. May they last as long as Olbernmann.

Posted by: Bill on Maui | September 12, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse


I just heard Palin told Charlie she was against the Bridge to Nowhere when her own campaign literature shows she supported it, and she also said so in a debate. We're in Roveland, where everything is a lie. She also told him she's really against federal earmarks, Miss "I got $27 million in earmarks ($3,000 per resident)" as Mayor of Wasilla. She's just another Republican pathological liar, but with different face.

Posted by: Charles Lewis | September 12, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I hear this all the time question- are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?" I can say hell yes I'm gone from 100k to 350K a year so Yes I'm better off.

Posted by: Mike 1962 | September 12, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm a republican but I cannot support someone who is not qualified to step into the roll of Commander In Chief if something should happen to McCain. I'm staying home in November.

Posted by: QAJ | September 12, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

fromnj,

the fact that you can only name 3 with any assuredness is just sad, i would have thought even liberal left wing sites had more falsehoods to toss our direction.

the legislation on video tapes was long overdue, it was something already existant in other states and obama can hardly claim to have "led" it.

as for the other 2 bills you attribute to him, he stated at one point in his candidacy that he "had little to do with authoring" and had signed his name as a co-author for senatorial credit because it came up and was from his constituents.

still, this IS the most valid thing that obama has contributed, and it SHOULD get more coverage, but EVEN OBAMA does seem to think they are worth noting publically.

perhaps that speaks more to thier validity than anything else.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain says his statements and ads aren't lies. If his lips are moving the lies are flying out.

Posted by: Karl Roovian | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

HUBRIS is standing at a podium with a faux Seal of the President of the Unites States

when running for that office.

Especially when you have absolutely no qualifications for that office in the first place!!!!!

Posted by: BA/MA Poli Scie/J.D. | September 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"The worst and most idiot claim on the show was Whoopi playing fear of slavery."

i agree entirely, before this blatant veiled smear of mccain, i felt that neither campaign had reached the ultimate low, turning this into a race war.

but i beleive in teh end this will be obamas complete downfall. with teh application of the bradley effect (people lying in polls to avoid sounding racist), and the fact that some people cannot stand voting for obama thinking that its just a ploy for slave reparations (i know at least two people close to me who have decidedly changed thier vote on this very subject).

i beleive this to be the last nail in obama's coffin. i dont beleive he can recover.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Those old bags are just angry because they are fugly.

Posted by: truth | September 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Walters and Behar are both offensive to watch no matter what questions are being asked or who they are interviewing. They brought Michele Obama on the show and tip-toed around like she was some kind of a fragile child while asking only mundane meaningless questions. Obama and his wife are people who attended a church (for 20 years) that defamed and damned America in front of thousands of followers on a regular basis. They have associated themselves with a Syrian born, money laundering slum lord who had all the Chicago politicians in his back pocket (Obama included). Obama is associated with Ayers who is known for his terrorist attacks on abortion clinics. These things are facts, and yet there was no mention of them on the view.

When you are in a position to influence others, such as shows like the View, you should present all the facts regarding any issue, especially a national election. The View is clearly favoring Obama just as most of the main stream media is, so they are never going to present the negative facts about who Obama really is. Their attempts to make John McCain look bad has only made me like him more. John McCain has sacrificed for and served this country for years. He is not perfect, but at least he is not fraud. Obama is a phony and you don't have to look hard to see it. I will never let the biased, sexist, liberal media influence my vote.

Posted by: s.kaye | September 12, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

What's so great about Palin again? She is just Bush in a dress and nothing more. Palin and Bush agree on everything, and both are uneducated ultra right wing religious wackos. But I guess there is a strong appeal for that since Bush won in 2000 and 2004. Call me a snob, but the majority of Americans are idiots. Democracy is a failure when idiots outnumber intelligent people!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

If NoBama had gotten this type of treatment he would have complained to the network owners. Instead, he was treated with respect and light-weight questions by these dimwits.

Posted by: Suzanne | September 12, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Before you parrot the tired Republican line that Obama authored "no legislation of note" you might want to look at:

1) The landmark ethics reform legislation that also led to the creation of a website where you can see where your tax dollars go (he and Republican Tom Coburn authored this).

2) The legislation regarding securing loose nuclear weapons that he authored together with Republican Dick Lugar.

3) Those were two big ones, but of course he did a lot more in the U.S Senate, which you can lookup on the Library of Congress website (http://thomas.loc.gov)

4) Obama's accomplishments in the Illinois state legislature are too numerous to list - include videotaping of criminal confessions to protect the police as well as those wrongly accused, legislation related to racial profiling, the list goes on and on.

Also, no one has explained to me why, in Obama's case we must completely ignore his 8 years of experience at the state level, but in the case of the Republican VP candidate, her state level experience somehow makes her (of all things) a foreign policy expert.

Posted by: fromnj | September 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I take great comfort that "big dummy" and Mr. Smithers won't be in office any more. If McCain lives long enough, he'll do better than big dummy. If he dies, God help us if Palin has to be president.

I can't understand how any Hillary supporters can possibly go for Palin, considering she's polar opposite on EVERY issue. Ladies, you're being pandered to. You really are.

Posted by: Pat | September 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

“…What's happened to John McCain's conscience?”

He left it in a locker some where in New Hampshire, and he can’t remember where, or the combination. Give the old guy a chance. He just wants to get to the White House really bad.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

The Cheney/Rove strategy that John Bush/Pitbull Palin is committed to depends on having a "press plan" that works like it did before the internets. They need a malleable MSM "contact" or two that is willing to propagandize the party line and readers easily spun until eventually up is down, black is white, banks are safe, less government works better, war is best if done first, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, media assures us everyday that they are hot on the talking point trail and we wonder how angry red lipped dogs and pigs became such an overriding image of our newest zealot. Ha. When Baba Wawa is doing better journalism than the wapo steno pool, it is almost time to stop trying, but you can never underestimate how low (R)'s are willing to go to steal another election, so anticipate the worst of the Cheney/Rove/John Bush strategy, because they have earned it, and you'll pump up the drama, we'll read it and comment, as usual. Pretty fun, huh?

Posted by: PreAmerikkkan | September 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Dale, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent.

Regardless, you talk about 'sentence fluency', but I know what a sentence is, and 'SIGNED LEGISLATION' isn't a sentence. Could you please explain how saying 'SIGNED LEGISLATION' means an ad saying 'Obama's one accomplishment was legislation to teach sex ed to kindergartners' doesn't insinuate that 'Obama wanted sex ed taught to kindergartners'?

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 5:28 PM

you changed your sentence structure to fit your cause this time, you now say "wanted it taught to them" where before it was insinuating pedophilia that he "wanted to teach them it" thats teh difference thats key in claiming its a lie. or even misleading.

and trust me aengil, the fact that you choose not to make a choice and call yourself a democrat doesnt change that your ideals scream democrat.

i may vote for kerry in 04, but i label myself as the republican i am.

its cool in america to not stand on issues and call yourself one party or another, but wee still hold our ideals and you ma'am are a democrat.

the only way a person can insinuate that mccains add is false, is to insinuate that it calls obama a pedophile, but it speaks directly of him having done an act of legislation, not of pedophelia, therefore its quite obvious that there is no disregarding of facts.

did you know that litterally days before obama quit being a community organizer he had a deep conversation with a close friend suggesting that community organizing was "a waste of time" and "a lost cause".

i spose you wouldnt.

none the less the facts are there if you check.

just like the one where whoopie basically suggests that mccain wants to enslave blacks on the view (conveniently left out of the article and the west coast broadcast).

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Before becoming the VP GOP Candidate Palins political relationships and network extended only to the boarders of Alaska. Well with the exception of the Pork King Sen. Ted Stevens, but he has been indited and is probably going to jail on corruption charges (notice a hypocrisy here?).

When folks say that many Governors have been President and Vice President they are absolutely correct, however, they had developed relationships and networks outside of their States, relationships that take years to build. Palin does not have a network or the relationships on her own she will have to borrow those of her handlers. We have never had someone with such great odds of being President so absolutely unqualified as we have with Palin... NEVER.

Note I say unqualified not inexperienced. She simply does not have the knowledge base to take on the job.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 12, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you Dale - I'm more and more amazed by the level of disconected reality on the Democratic side. It seems as if opinions are rooted more in emotion than reality...
... like one comment from this article about the plane Palin sold... "well she sold it for a loss"... How can people tear her down for things like this???.... She cuts previous wasteful government expenses by selling this plane for what ended up being 80% of the origional sale price... eliminated associated costs of maintinance and fuel.... there really are no attack points here....

Posted by: Ian | September 12, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The worst and most idiot claim on the show was Whoopi playing fear of slavery.
Race was over long before Rice and Powell lead this Nation well.
Race is soooooo over.
Whoopi needs to see a shrink and get over it.

The #1 issue left out is Gender bias.
This election is about women with resumes being kicked to the curb for an idiot named Hussein.
Cut and dry that is the bottom line why Democrats are departing the party like flies.

Palin 2008 breaks the smug old view of the Whitehouse.
The change for America is a woman in the Whitehouse.
Rice made the glass ceiling shatter for women close to the Oval office.
Now and #2 clears the way for Hillary poor poor disabled Hillary with the disability of being a woman in the Democrat party.

Posted by: dotty | September 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin says John McCain is a liar -- she did request earmarks. $200 Million worth. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_republicans

Earmarks are the new gay marriage anyway. Many are good uses of the taxpayer's money. And all together, they amount to $16 Billion when the deficit is $450+ Billion. Concentrating on earmarks is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a bucket: not a very big bucket at that.

What about the 46 million Americans that have no health insurance? What about the astronomical deficit? What about the near collapse of the mortgage banking industry? What about the cost of college tuitions? What about Afghanistan, what about Iraq? What about those tax cuts for the rich that McCain thought he could not in good conscience support?

What's happened to John McCain's conscience?

Posted by: DDS | September 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Coming in with the book banning, and whatever else they're talking about, LYING consistently! What is up with that?

Be humble and simply tell the darn truth. Or is it that McCain knows jack about his VP candidate?

I find it cheap to attack McCain on not being up with the times, as he's had plenty to evolve with and just didn't do it, but I will say that he could have easily used to the internet to find out about those earmarks instead of answering so quickly. Goodness gracious. If he didn't know, what is so hard about saying, "Hey, I actually don't know?" It's very simple.

Posted by: Obama2008 | September 12, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Things are really getting bad for McCain when Barbara Walters kicks your ***.

Posted by: Jerry | September 12, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

JDC, Fess Up

What democrat calls themselves a "Dem" then launches into a typical far right liberal-hating diatribe.

You can hide your identity in a blog, but your written words speak volumes.

Posted by: ddancause | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Dale, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent.

Regardless, you talk about 'sentence fluency', but I know what a sentence is, and 'SIGNED LEGISLATION' isn't a sentence. Could you please explain how saying 'SIGNED LEGISLATION' means an ad saying 'Obama's one accomplishment was legislation to teach sex ed to kindergartners' doesn't insinuate that 'Obama wanted sex ed taught to kindergartners'?

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing about all of these posts is that you are all biased. Everybody, even candidates for Pres and VP, lie. McCain has lied, Obama has lied, Palin has lied and Biden has lied. The only vindication for a liar is to own up to their lies and that is a difficult feat at times. Each of you that have posted are sick in the head!! Throwing stones from the doors of your glass homes. Let's boil this down to issues and issues alone. Whose plans will work better? My situation needs improving, as most all of ours does. The problem with most Americans is that they make decisions based on emotion and not logic. Do what you feel is right and live with the results. Who knows who will really be best for the country until they've assumed office. We are basically playing a game of chance, no matter how you look at it. I would suggest being open minded and using the remainder of this campaign season to review all of the facts, both sides, and then make an educated decision. Unfortunately, that is too much to ask of some people.

Posted by: Rinasanz@gmail.com | September 12, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Four more years, that’s all we ask. Please give Halliburton another chance. We know what America needs.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Palin's running for president against Obama?

Posted by: tudy | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Bob sayeth, "retarded voters like yourself are what's scary. please answer this question- are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?"

Now that was not a very kind thing to say to dale. The fact is citizens like him will never admit that they were better off in the past than today. Their view of the world does not allow this flexibility. In their eyes, for a citizen to be anything other than Republican, is to be a heretic and an un-American.

Posted by: the_Dude | September 12, 2008 5:20 PM

i guess the fact that i voted for kerry in 04 kinda destroys that logic eh?

i never vote for people who are not fiscally conservative.

so i never voted for bush, and i wont vote for obama.

a government is a business, and when the people choose to be fiscally irresponsible (mortgage housing crises and american credit card debt) the government MUST be fiscally responsible.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

While the girls at the View are nothing but a bunch of ignorant show girls, and stand up comedians who when asked when a couple years ago "When is the sun closer to the earth than our moon is? In the winter or the summer?" - they all answered the summer - including Barbara Walters!!!
Obviously, they are not to be held in high regard, however, because they are getting recognition as "reporters" from CNN and other media outlets, I must give my opinion and say that while their questions were legitimate - it is a shame that they didn't grill Obama in the same manner - instead just gushed and smiled and told him he is sexy.

Disgusting. I am an independent leaning toward voting for Obama - but the coverage is still the same ol' leftist garbage, which is what is bringing Obama down.

Americans like voting for the underdog and because the coverage of the entire media (except for FOX of course which is just the opposite - too one sided to the Right) - is extremely one sided, the causing the American public to lean toward McCain and Palin.
When is the media going to be what it is suppose to be - the 4th branch of government - seeking the truth and holding the public officials accountable, instead of seeking to try to sway the American public to agree with their own personal opinions. CNN - we report - you decide - Oh Pulease!

Posted by: Annette | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

desperate men do desperate things. obama couldn't be any more desperate if he tried. He looks weaker and more ineffective every day. It was just a matter of time until everyone found out there is a know nothing, do nothing, rookie behind the democratic curtain....what were they thinking?

Posted by: just me used to be a democrat | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see Walters and Behar have Biden on and press him about his lies on bankruptcy reform. Ask him about stating on Meet the Press recently that "I passed on the first three bankruptcy reform bills, but I made sure that women and child support were protected." NO NO NO HE DID NOT. My ex filed bankruptcy and I never got a dime of child support. His back support went from 18k to 27k under that bankruptcy. Credit card companies, Friedman's jewelers and car note holders got their money first and then he stopped paying. Joe Biden didn't protect moms and children he protected his son and his son's employer MBNA. LETS have Walters and Behar press the candidates on REAL ISSUES from REAL EVERYDAY PEOPLE.

Posted by: kalexander | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

i guess george is in the bottom half of americans. seriously, why does mccain need to change the minds of "real democrats"? no republican could genius.

Posted by: scott | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I know we're suppose to walk on egg shells around Sarah Palin.
After all she does eat moose burgers an all.

That being said - Sarah Palin is a joke - and a cynical insult toward the American people.

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Palin is the new Nixon, the press will not pull punches anymore.

In the end they were right to go after Nixon.

McCain made an impulsive "maverick" stunt. But I do not think he thought it through. He saw the package but did not foresee the possibility that her ignorance in national and international issues may become obvious to everyone.

I hope the press holds all the candidates to task and that they ask the direct questions and demand straight answers and if caught in a lie or misleading statement that they call them on it.

In the end, if the media actually did their jobs it would become quite evident who will be the better ticket. McCain is using the smoke and mirrors and running a very, very, dirty campaign (something he said he would never do) and America is sick of that campaigning style.

John McCain once a hero, once a maverick, now just a cynical opportunist.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 12, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Dale: 'once again rc, i will restate, the ad did absolutely nothing to insinuate those points'

I quote, from the ad: 'Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners.'

And you say that does nothing to insinuate that 'Obama intended to teach sex ed to kindergartners'? Seriously? Are you nuts?

I mean really, are you completely disconnected from reality?

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM

sorry, i forgot you are a democrat, you dont use context to gather facts (like the old fish and 8 years in mccains lipstick address).

SIGNED LEGISLATION

sorry, i mistook you for a sane person who comprehends sentence fluency like the subject.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Bob sayeth, "retarded voters like yourself are what's scary. please answer this question- are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?"

Now that was not a very kind thing to say to dale. The fact is citizens like him will never admit that they were better off in the past than today. Their view of the world does not allow this flexibility. In their eyes, for a citizen to be anything other than Republican, is to be a heretic and an un-American.

Posted by: the_Dude | September 12, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I am a dem. But how come Elizabeth has to question Obama on his history why the others just sit back on this clip of Obama onthe view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTl4s_xIDY&feature=related

Give me a break. I will not side with the GOP. But I am thinking of leaving the DNC real soon. The corrupt campaign of Obama, the left, left, liberal Obama loving media, Pelosi, Dean, Kerry. I mean I just can't stand these people.

I just find it funny how it's one against one in this clip of Obama on the View and four against one in the McCain/View clip. Another example of the left, left Obama loving liberal media. Makes me want to barf. That's why McCain is gonna win.

And what's funny is that the Obama campaign thinks that the people of this country doesn't think that he doesn't have connections in the media. Uhhh... ok??? Like I'm sure you don't keep that smile on your face Obama while you tell your friends in the left, left liberal press to write these bashing articles.

I'm not a Palin fan, but after these two weeks, I feel like I want to be cause I know it's the Obama campaigns connection to the left left Obama loving media that has created all of the stories compared to these questions:

1. Why did Joe Biden in 2007 say Obama is not prepared to be President?

2. If you Obama say you want to get rid of old Washington, then why did you choose someone who has been in the Senate for 35 years. Doesn't that contradict your biggest and loudest message of Change?

3. If your biggest argument against Hillary Clinton was that she voted for the war in Iraq then why did you choose a running mate who also voted for the war in Iraq?

I just don't understand why the press doesn't ask these questions. It makes me not want to vote for Obama. I see how he gets the free ride. Mathews, Olberman, Maddow, That stupid Joe guy in the morning, Eugene Robinson. They make me all sick. They are soooo scared to ask their own candidate the real questions. I mean real ones. Not the general ones I listed above because they know he cannot answer them. So they put the toughness on Palin instead of Obama.

And what they think is that the Hillary supporters are going to fall for it. Sorry guys. We want the tough questions on Obama too. He hasn't had any yet. DO YOUR JOB!!

Posted by: jdc | September 12, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I've seen a few panicked Democrats suggesting Obama should quickly dump Biden and sign on Hillary to try to counter the Palin surge.

Man, I sure hope he does. You think things are dicey for Obama now; just imagine the questions that would fly over HIS decision-making if he made such a blunder to switch VP's, which would just cement his image as indecisive and inexperienced. McCain's camp would have a field day for the next 6 weeks!

I don't even think Obama should have picked Hillary. The choice was so obvious: pick another well-liked but lesser known woman. Like the governors of Kansas or Arizona. You then have a ticket with a minority and a woman; double-down on the ticket making history.

McCain would have had nowhere to go, nothing unique he could have done to appeal to a wide swathe of undecided voters. Hillary supporters would have been mad, but where would they have gone? To McCain/Ridge? Obama threw the door open himself for the Palin-mania that is now upon us.

Just shows Obama has absolutely no plan behind his vision. I give him some credit in that he has vision for how he wants things to be, he just has no real plan for how to get there.

Oh....and who says Hillary would say "yes" anyway? Would you say "yes" if you knew you were the guys second choice for the prom?

Remember when you go to vote, Obama has never led a town, city, county, or state. He's never had to make any executive decisions. He has had to make only one major decision in his political career to date. Just one. His choice for VP. And he blew it.

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

hey dale, why should we believe you and not fact check orgs, or AP?
Where are your credentials?
anyone can reinterpret or take out of context; any fool.
no thanks

Posted by: ukeman | September 12, 2008 5:14 PM

why should you beleive factcheck.org, where are its credentials? who pays for the site? do you even know who runs it? how they vote each year?

do you know the public concensus on the site itself and its bias?

my credentials are thier lack of credentials, im simply saying you should check your facts, and not on sites with no validity aside from popularity.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Dale: 'once again rc, i will restate, the ad did absolutely nothing to insinuate those points'

I quote, from the ad: 'Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners.'

And you say that does nothing to insinuate that 'Obama intended to teach sex ed to kindergartners'? Seriously? Are you nuts?

I mean really, are you completely disconnected from reality?

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It is clear that McCain won't tell the truth about lies. He is a maverick when it comes to truth.

Posted by: Affinity1 | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

News Flash: In a first in American presidential politics Republican John McCain has officially changed his name to McBush. It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this unusual move will have on the outcome of the 2008 presidential race. In the meantime Barack Obama congratulated his opponent for his honesty.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It is time someone started calling a spade a spade and told McCain to his face that he is lying, lying about Obama's record, about his words, lying about Gov. Palin's record. He is running a despicable smear campaign. Next it would be nice for someone to focus on issues like the skyrocketing deficit run up by the supposedly fiscally responsible Republican president, the growing government (size and intrusiveness) run up by the supposedly small government Republican president, the tanking economy (weak dollar, home foreclosures, bank failings,rising unemployment) led by failed GOP fiscal policy. I would mention the mess in foreign relations but that would be over the top. We don't need another shoot from the hip, who needs experience when you have common sense, Republican administration.

Vote for change. Obama/Biden 08,

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama - recognized US leader, recognized around the globe leader, established relationships with world leaders.

Palin - unknown in US, unknown globally, no established relationships with world leaders.

Posted by: DaveDan | September 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

hey dale, why should we believe you and not fact check orgs, or AP?
Where are your credentials?
anyone can reinterpret or take out of context; any fool.
no thanks

Posted by: ukeman | September 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

WOW! Notice how drastic the tone of the Republican supporters has changed today?

They are starting to panic now that they realize democrats actually have a candidate that will fight back.

I can understand their concern:
They have an old man with no new ideas and a young woman with no experience. Tough mix to sell to independents who are sick of the last 8 years of republican rule.

The call it a convention "bounce" for a reason: what goes up, must come down.
I'm sure McCain will accuse gravity of sexism in his next smear ad.

Posted by: Panic much? | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

It is a given that half of all Americans are below average intelligence. The problem is that people on the higher than average side are more evenly spread than the people on the lower side. The lower side are clustered at the bottom of the scale denoting severely ignorant to approaching stupid. McCain is betting on that half of the people to make the difference in his campaign. He cannot change the minds of real democrats and doesn't need to change the minds of the Republicans. This only leaves mass quantities of ignorant or stupid people that believe what they hear without question. That is how and why he can just repeatedly lie and not need to prove anything he says. It is a brilliant plan and it could work for him but we all will lose in the end.

At one time, I used to believe that McCain would have been on of the greatest presidents we could ever have. He impressed me with his ideology and his thoughts and efforts on how to correct the blatant corruption in Washington. But then, Washington changed him and he doesn't seem to see or understand that, once you lie, cheat or steal for personal gain then nothing you do can be trusted. He wants to be president so badly that he is willing to lie, cheat and steal to get that job.

If he dies in office from old age or what ever, does anyone really think that Sarah Palin would have a clue of how to run this country. More importantly how our terrorist enemies view that scenario.

Posted by: George | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

hey foofers, read this from NYT

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

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

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: where's your balls Washington Post????? you've got LIARS PRETENDING to be PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES... | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

My friend, as we all know the world has changed a great deal since 1900 -- not the least of which, being able to annihilate each other in a matter of minutes. Do you really advocate putting someone with the credentials you list a heartbeat away from the presidency?

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

Voter wrote:

Who am I?

I am under 45 years old,
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have many children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office.

Did you guess?

I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

His image stands alongside Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln on Mount Rushmore. Surveys of scholars have consistently ranked him from third to seventh on the list of greatest American presidents.
----------------------

Posted by: valandsend | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

hey voter, TR had WAY more experience than Bushette, as secretary of the navy, as new york assemblyman, and an officer in the army...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

It's about time someone in the media stepped up to the plate and confronted McCain. Only who'd have thunk it would be the ladies of the View ? Shame on you Washington Post, New York Times and all the other papers who have acted like such wusses in the campaign. Do your job for cripe's sakes !

Posted by: Alison | September 12, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

In politics say want you want, no matter how outrageous and false. The one truth Politicians DO BELEIVE: "Peception IS reality"

A sad commentary unfortunately.

Mr Obama may be a promising up and comer( kind of), but lets be honest, especially you hard and fast Dems members - he is not yet ready to be a Prez. He will need more seasoning, not on-the-job training

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after
143 days of experience.

McCain's party has had 2,810 days in office, during which time they brought the country to its knees. No one in that administration is currently qualified for a job as street sweeper. McCain is part and parcel of their stupendous failure. Come again!

Posted by: responsetoignorance | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM

when has mccains party had any time in office?

bush's fiscal record is that of a democrat, so the past 8 years dont count, and im pretty sure there was 8 years with an actual democrat. soooooo u got a point in that "response to ignorance"?

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Obviously theres alot to be said about the candidate who can LIE the most and keep a straight face.Good Performance Johhny.
I just cant beleive he straight up lied in front of millions of people, with the "FACTUAL " evidence so overwhelmingly against him.
It has not been a great 48 Hours for the Mccain camp, and its just getting worse.Every time McCain or his VP opens their mouths, they lie,and then lie about their lies.Its quite Pathetic to think this man and his campigners will stoop to such low tactics , just to try and get a few more votes.
AMERICANS, if You love this country,you wont waste your vote on this Maverick McCain.He and his managers think WE the American People who do have a say in the electoral process, are not intelligent enough to see through the lies and innuendo.

DONT WASTE YOUR VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VOTE EARLY
What does that mean? Heard it before???
It means vote as many times as you can, and this is how George Bush won his first election.Every state has ABSENTEE ballots, and you can get them mailed, you can pick them up from your local Board of Elections and mail it back to them, and you can fill one out later at the board of elections.Then, since its YOUR RIGHT, show up at the voting booth in November, theyll walk you right over to the election machine.

DONT BELEIVE ME????? I Voted 5 times for Kerry, only after i over heard a group of GOPers celebrating their defear of GORE IN 2000, boasting about each of them dropping multiple ballots.
Why does it work?? Unless you live in a small community, say Wasilla or similar, who last election only had 12 to 14 hundred voters, the Boards of elections cant possibly equate between absentee or actual live votes. They lump them in a category, get pressed for immediate results, and never second check their voting numbers.Some communitys only have a 30 to 40 % voting populous, so even if half of the voters voted multiple times, the numbers wouldnt overtak the population, and it wouldnt raise any alarms.
BELEIVE ME, it Worked for Bush, twice, and it might work for McCain if we arent vigilant

Posted by: Mullett | September 12, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand the criticism of a higher tax bracket for extraordinarily wealthy individuals. I realize you people like to throw around the word socialism without understanding what it means, and I can forgive that as a lack of education. The problem I have with your argument is that our government was set up specifically to eliminate aristocratic rule. One man's vote counts as much as another’s (within reason, it can't be perfect), and everyone starts on roughly equal footing. When you allow people to make obscene amounts of money (define that as you want, I put obscenity at over two million.) they become far more powerful than the average man (money = power as you may recall).

An example of this influencing voting (keep in mind, one individual is MASSIVELY influencing elections simply by virtue of his extreme wealth) is the Texas billionaires who privately fund organizations to run attack ads. 99.9 percent of qualified individuals who could run for office can’t, simply because they don’t make more money than a small nation. Not to mention if you are born rich you start about a billion times ahead of your poor counterpart, meaning that equal opportunity goes out the window.

So we have a small group of people with extreme political power, who keep their families perpetually wealthy because they can afford the best education and are given the best opportunities via their heritage, while those born into poverty can’t get an education and never have the opportunity to succeed. That's pretty damn close to a ruling class, and every day that goes by the ability to change your social status in this country gets harder and harder.

Our "ruling class" is using their power to try and change the constitution to restrict the rights of those with certain religions and sexual orientations, at times openly mocking things like equal protection under the law. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. This isn’t about coveting wealth; this is about protecting the principles of American Democracy.

Posted by: Laughing | September 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

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


"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

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

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: the republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple... | September 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

scott ; you can "interpret" the facts.
But where is your AP report that Mcain is obviously the distorting and pushing lies?
Oh yeah, Fix News.
Oh yeah, elected Republican support their man.

The racist, bigoted rationalizations by y'all koolaid drinkers, are like addicts arguing for a refill, despite the scar on this country; get back and let the future (your own kids) have a chance already.

Posted by: ukeman | September 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

In politics say want you want, no matter how outrageous and false. The one truth Politicians DO BELEIVE: "Peception IS reality"

A sad commentary unfortunately.

Ms Palin may be a promising up and comer, but lets be honest, especially you hard and fast GOP members - she is not yet ready to be a heartbeat from Prez. She will need more seasoning, not on-the-job baptism by fire.

Posted by: DaveDan | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

we have to also admit that McCain's ad claiming that Obama intended to teach sex ed to kindergartners is at the very least an exageration. That's my real point on this.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM

once again rc, i will restate, the ad did absolutely nothing to insinuate those points, each person got a different view from it. theres a huge democratic base ignorance on this issue. most people who watched the ad only walked away with the reality that they already knew, obama has little experience, and even less than he should considering he is a harvard grad.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after
143 days of experience.

McCain's party has had 2,810 days in office, during which time they brought the country to its knees. No one in that administration is currently qualified for a job as street sweeper. McCain is part and parcel of their stupendous failure. Come again!

Posted by: responsetoignorance | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I guess if he keeps repeating the lies then that will make it true. Ah, the fatasy land that the liberals live in.
I wonder what kind of drugs this guy is on? I mean the south side Chicago with that much energy is unnatural!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

This article would be far more informative if it actually, you know, reported on whether the ladies of 'the view' were correct, or Senator McCain, in those areas where they disagreed. The record should be clear enough that a reporter could add a quick statement that notes which side was being more casual with the truth.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin offers a reward for bringing in the bloodied, severed paw of a wolf? There is nothing Christian in her barbarism.

Matthew 10:29: "Not even a sparrow, worth only half a penny, can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it."

Posted by: trace1 | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

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

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


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

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


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is a liar.

Posted by: DDS | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

What a ticket? McCain get’s slapped down on the View and in the now infamous interview, Palin seems to be ill informed about more than global warming. So, where is the “change” McCain has been talking about? Sarah Palin appears to see the world through the same simplistic and narrow spectrum as Bush/Chaney. The ease with which she offers war as an option is both shocking and very scary. Since Bush adopted the preemptive strike doctrine, the world appears to have become much more dangerous and the Russian Bear is now using very similar arguments in support of its aggressive foreign policy. It appears to me that Governor Palin has failed to draw the appropriate lessons from that and proposes to blindly continue the failed Bush policies.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"...eat their youn gontoast..."

I think he meant:

"...eat their young on toast..."

Cannibalism is wrong, regardless of whose young you are eating. That's just sick, man.

Posted by: thedude | September 12, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Voter | September 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Don't just call someone a liar. Most of idots who think Obama is a liar only think so because you are buying into the lies McCain or some right wing nut job said about him. Look at the facts on non-partisan fact-checker pages, and then make an aurgument. construct your sentences by saying Obama lied because, and then finsih your statement. If the word because is followed by Limnbaugh, McCain, Palin, Hannity, or whatever nut job you are quoting said, than it is not a letgitimate arguement. So, stop breeding and start reading please----

Posted by: Sarah | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM

um....obama is being sued because he cannot prove he was born in the us, a requirement of the presidency, he lied 4 times about contributions to his campaign made by rezko (a man he says he never knew)

mccains ads which are falsly claimed to be lies have not had a single lawsuit filed against htem and the biggest potential legal fiassco is teh troopergate instance with sarah palin WHICH HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER 2 YEARS WITH NO EVIDENCE POINTING TO PALIN.

not to mention the guy she fired said directly after being fired that "it had nothing to do with wooten" when the investigation first started.

get your facts hun, and not from obamas website.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Palin.....Ms. Hubris
In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge combined with a lack of humility. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in the Greek world. The proverb "pride goes before a fall" is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris. In reference to someone being in hubrity: hubrity is a fulfillment of being hubristic or a continual behavior of being prideful. Victor in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein exudes hubris in order to become a great scientist, but is eventually regretting this previous desire. Faustus in Christopher Marlowe's play Dr. Faustus exudes hubris, all the way until his final minutes of life.

Posted by: DUNCAN | September 12, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Ok, another claim I've seen everywhere but have never seen verified (please help): Sen. Obama has some extremely gifted, not ever named, but apparently world famous speech writer. Give me a name!! And, Pres. Bush has over 200 speechwriters employed by the White House. Why would this even be an issue (if someone could actually prove it true). -e

Posted by: Elaine | September 12, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

At least I cited Pat Buchanan for my statement. Do you have a source for yours?

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Manny: you have it backwards. Clinton had the vast majority of the super delegates, not Obama. He was winning all the real ones, and when he clinched the majority of them, just enough of the super delegates switched to give him the overall majority.

as for earmarks, McCain has no respect for facts, and will make claims he either knows are false or doesn't know to be true, he doesn't care and just assumes he will get more mileage out of the claim than he will lose when the lie is exposed. only I suspect the Obama folks will be all over this one. they not only get to point out that Palin is a fraud on earmarks, they get to point out that McCain either doesn't know her record or doesn't mind lying about it, one or the other. sort of a twofer.

Posted by: JoeT | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

McCain's a big boy. He can take the hit.

Posted by: usr105 | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I guess if he keeps repeating the lies then that will make it true. Ah, the fatasy land that the republicans live in.
I wonder what kind of drugs this guy is on? I mean 71 years old with that much energy is unnatural!

Posted by: Mikey | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

“Anonymous” if you are going to spread fear, uncertainty, and distrust, at least have the courage not to call yourself “anonymous.”

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 4:55 PM

Happy??

Posted by: Bill Clinton | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I find it hard to believe that there are still people in this country that need to have it pointed out to them that Robot Boy McCain and Stepford Palin are dishonest and deceitful at best. The true term is that they are liars.

I guess their team believes that if you keep saying a lie over and over, even in the face of facts. People will start to believe you. However, people won't .... but sheeple will.

Posted by: Jefferson | September 12, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I am seriously trying to better research both candidates here, as I voted for neither in the primaries. I hear this "143 days" a lot from the Republican side. Where does this data, and the below quote, come from?

Posted by: Elaine | September 12, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

As Pat Buchanan pointed out after the DNC, Obama, like Reagan, writes his own speeches...Just thought you might want to know that.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:52 PM

dude you are more full of it than obama today

OBAMA WROTE 1 CAMPAIGN SPEECH THIS ENTIRE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WITH HIS SPEECH WRITER STANDING OVER HIS SHOULDER.

stop spreading obamaniac "factchecks"

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"These women are all so in the bag for Obama they couldn't help but attack as hard as they could and not quit."

Uhh, they were simply asking McCain if the adds were lies, and he lied to them.
This isn't rocket science!

Posted by: Mr.X | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: GeoPoliticalGaffe | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Don't just call someone a liar. Most of idots who think Obama is a liar only think so because you are buying into the lies McCain or some right wing nut job said about him. Look at the facts on non-partisan fact-checker pages, and then make an aurgument. construct your sentences by saying Obama lied because, and then finsih your statement. If the word because is followed by Limnbaugh, McCain, Palin, Hannity, or whatever nut job you are quoting said, than it is not a letgitimate arguement. So, stop breeding and start reading please----

Posted by: Sarah | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm allmost starting to hope McLame and Pork Barrel Palin win, so I can laugh at all the idiots when everything falls apart.

Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It's a pity that the hardest hitting questions of the campaign are being asked on "the View".

Kudos to the hosts!

The mainstream media should be shamed by their reluctance to stick to critical topics and their inability to confront bold-faced lies, or "contradictions to the truth" - if that' s a little softer for the soft journalism.

Posted by: Ann Z | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Senator Obama is not the most experienced candidate EVER, however, he did spend many years as a state senator and does have several years on the national level, with exposure to international affairs. A mayor of 5000 people who had an administrator do a lot of the governing, and less than two years governing much fewer people than Sen. Obama represented in both the State and National Senate is NOT equal experience, and it is NOT 'more' experience. Her interview last night showed me, a neutral observer, that while she seems like a nice woman...she does not have what it takes to represent me as VP of the U.S.A. Not yet, maybe not ever.

Posted by: Elaine | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after
143 days of experience.

You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of
being a surgeon.

You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after
143 days of experience.

You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days
of experience.

You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news
anchor after 143 days of experience.

BUT....


'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to
the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory
committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how
many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143
days of work experience, that's 4 months and 23 days, Obama believes
he is ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143
days.

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after
143 days, that's all it is - a start.

AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this
and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of
work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States
of America? Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American
Idol!

Please VOTE

Posted by: Voter | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Mcain wants MORE WAR BOM BOM BA RAN
PaLIn wants MORE WAR.
life imprisonment or death penalty for those NOT RICH ENOUGH to leave the country for a rape/incest/abortion.
Mcain's camp, RUN by LOBBYISTS will not allow gov's to ask for earmarks.... they only will ASK THEIR CONGRESS for them.
Change we can count on.
Read the writing on the wall. Republicans will demolish this country IF WE LET THEM.

Posted by: ukeman | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Dale,

I know a little bit about kids communication ability as my spouse has several degrees in that field, but I won't bore you with the details...

My comment about McCain's support for pedophilia was a poor attempt at humor. I usually avoid inflamatory language because I think it obstructs real debate. Even if we accept your statement that the bill was just feel good fluff, we have to also admit that McCain's ad claiming that Obama intended to teach sex ed to kindergartners is at the very least an exageration. That's my real point on this.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

http://whenelephantsfly.blogspot.com

McCain is employing the age old republican tactic: keep vehemently repeating a lie. If you repeat it enough times, people will start to think it's the truth.

This is not the same John McCain of a few years back. McCain has lost his sense of honor and decency -- he is not out there promoting the ideals that can make this country great again, but instead saying whatever it is he can to dupe the American people into voting for him.

Don't fall for these disgraceful antics!

More commentary at: http://whenelephantsfly.blogspot.com

Posted by: pokernicus | September 12, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Nice incomplete article. I notice you left out all of Goldberg's comments. She acted like a bully and brought full- out stupidity to the set of the view with asking John Mccain about slavery. What a disrespectful, embarassing group of women. Barbara Walters is no longer a woman with a great legacy, the last few years she's become so radically biased. I wouldn't lower myself to ever go on this show. Once again, I appreciate the totally unbiased complete article of this author. NOT!

Posted by: shelly | September 12, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

“Anonymous” if you are going to spread fear, uncertainty, and distrust, at least have the courage not to call yourself “anonymous.”

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

given the "ladies" on the view (i use that term loosely as Walters had an affair with a married man for how long? and the one had how many abortions?) couldn't give you the full story on obama, i'll help highlight a few:

-obama's earmark spending requests for 3 years: $740 million. mccain's: $0. (new york times)

-obama took way money from rezko and filtered huge funds back to him while in illinoi. obama initially denied any such ties.

-obama was a member of a church, with a man he considered "family" and baptized his children yet he had no clue he could be a racist and anti-American

-obama doesn't use lobbyists. yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show. (usatoday "It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising money to get access or curry favor," said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that while Obama's refusal to take money from lobbyists "isn't a perfect solution or symbol, it does reflect Obama's record of trying to change the way that Washington does business." He declined to elaborate.)

-obama condemned hillary clinton day in and day out for voting for the iraq war. obama picks biden for vp. biden voted for the war.

-obama said the surge didn't work and iraq was no better off. obama said the surge did work.

-obama claims that 95% of Americans will get a tax break. unfortunately, under his plan 40% are those who already pay no taxes.

there are just a few things b.o. can't "change"---the facts.

Posted by: scott | September 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Who am I?

I am under 45 years old,
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have many children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two
years in the governor's office.



Did you guess?












I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

His image stands alongside Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln on Mount Rushmore. Surveys of scholars have consistently ranked him from third to seventh on the list of greatest American presidents.

Posted by: Voter | September 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Barack "Barry" Obama is being sued by Attorney Philip Berg, an attorney and backer of Hillary Clinton. Berg charges that Obama isn't eligible to run for president since he's had an Indonesian and Kenyan citizenship.

Obama also was accepted into Harvard due to a Saudi billionaire, Tariq Ramadan,writting a letter urging then to do so. His application wouldn't have been accepted on it's own merits.

Look up Frank Marshall Davis, a known member of the communist party. He spent nine years mentoring "Barry" in Hawaii.

Google William Ayers, a close friend of Obama's in Chicago. He's an admitted terrorist that claimed responsibility for bombings in the US.

Tony Rezko is a friend of Obama's that is currently serving a prison term. He was repsonsible for Obama's 4 million dollar real estate deal.

Rev. Jerimiah Wright. Enough said.

Barack Hussein Obama is only 1 of 5 known aliases Obama has known to go by. Hmmm, wonder why?

Posted by: Stephen | September 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

FILE class-action-lawsuits, and/or criminal suits against the

repulsive scammer crowd for fraud, misleading advertisement, and libel....


they _ARE_ selling a product


the _CAN_ be sued.


Politics is not FRAUD based, there are consequences to


DELIBERATE FRAUD....


make them pay, with their economic lives, _end_their_lives_ economically


sue them into oblivion...


THAT WOULD GARNER SOME BIG HEADLINES AND ENCOURAGE AMERICAN CITIZENS....


take away the PROFESSIONAL LIARS' futures as they have taken away


YOURS....


.

eat their youn gontoast with a bit of marmalade and cream cheese...


.


Posted by: deferential process of removing slime from view...ala mike and his band of merry fa gouts. | September 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Democratic tactic, they lie to your face while calling you a liar, I love it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM

amen, times like 10,000

also, they call you racist while they have whoopie goldberg make a comment about being made a slave by a white man winning an election.

(btw, white guy free'd the slaves and he was a republican)

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Maybe its just me but I thought Palin sucked at the RNC convention speech. The press told us otherwise

Posted by: Chris | September 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

It's not too late for Obama to win this thing -- his only hope is to dump Biden and sign Hillry on.

Posted by: ctiffan | September 12, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Liberals.. its all over for you.I pity you

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

You are right. Liberals are freak'n out. Look at the polls and I can tell you the women of the view DO NOT represent most of America.
Sorry Obama

Posted by: Michael P | September 12, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

When even the "news" media goes after theier boy McCain for lying, that's when you really know it's gotten out of control. This is going to hurt him big.

Posted by: Magic Dog | September 12, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

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


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

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

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

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

As Pat Buchanan pointed out after the DNC, Obama, like Reagan, writes his own speeches...Just thought you might want to know that.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama is nothing special. He's just another loser who broke the laws as a youth and took drugs. That is not the type of person I want as president. That's not even the type of person I want to pump my sewer. Stay far away from crack smoking politicians. What an Obamanation. This guy has nothing to offer us, but a line of bull. He has NOTHING.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

rcdc,

its principle to stand up and shout that you have not lied, if the individual wants to remain ignorant and hold you to a separate standard they can remain ignorant, its only the 30% democratic base that even believes that she is lying. but its fueled by the media.

as for the sex education law passed, its pure and utter hogwash, its a purely liberal legislative picture of ignorance.

less than 2% of abused children are able to communicate abuse as early as 5 years old. they often cannot communicate "oddness" in the home until they start comprehending creative writing which doesnt start until 8 older.

the legislation itself doesnt state a single thing about pedophelia unless you are ignorant, anyone with a HINT of knowledge understands and values that this legislation is exactly what obama is known for. useless "feel good" waste.

and mccain, chose a perfect example for his ads message.

the idea that it suggests pedophelia in any context is pure ignorance.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked by the hostility shown by all of the Obama followers. Your candidate is an empty suit who will do nothing but raise our taxes to fund his liberal programs and submit to our enemies. It's down right scary that people will actually vote for him. If you think things are bad now, imagine a country where there is more incentive to live off of government handouts than actually work hard and produce something. Thankfully, voters are starting to see him for what he is... a self contradicting egomaniac that reads beatifully from a teleprompter but thinks with a 2 faced stutter.

McCain 08

Posted by: NObama | September 12, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

As much as I don't like Ron Paul, even he is better than Obama, hell anyone off the street is better, because thats what he is.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

“… Politics is not FRAUD based, there are consequences to
DELIBERATE FRAUD....”

Really, which planet have you lived on? Americans have been lied to for the last eight years. Our government went to war, based on lies. McSame’s campaign is based on lies. Enough, we won’t take it anymore.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

If it weren't for the super delagates Hussein wouldn't even be the nominee.

Posted by: Manny | September 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

class-action-lawsuits against the,

or criminal suits against the

repulsive scammer crowd for fraud, misleading advertisement, and libel....


they _ARE_ selling a product


the _CAN_ be sued.


Politics is not FRAUD based, there are consequences to


DELIBERATE FRAUD....


make them pay, with their economic lives, _end_their_lives_ economically


sue them into oblivion...


THAT WOULD GARNER SOME BIG HEADLINES AND ENCOURAGE AMERICAN CITIZENS....


take away the PROFESSIONAL LIARS' futures as they have taken away


YOURS....


.

eat their youn gontoast with a bit of marmalade and cream cheese...


.


Posted by: FILE | September 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no experience other than a sketchy 2 years as Senator. What legislation did he himself draft? Nothing of note. What is his Senate voting record? Present. Not yes, not no but here. And he has spent a great deal of his 1st term not working on legislation, rather he has been mostly campaigning!

On the other hand, you have an aging war hero with a record of drafting legislation and voting. In other words action! (even if you don’t agree with the direction, action is better than inaction ANY DAY) He’s not pretty and certainly not eloquent, but tends to get stuff done. Work performed VS the ability to deliver a good speech (written by speech writers by the way).

McCain chose a vice presidential candidate who has MORE experience both as a Mayor and Governor than anything Obama has shown us yet. One might successfully argue a Senator is higher on the food chain than a Mayor or Governor but I know who has more weighing on their shoulders on any given day and it isn’t the charismatic talking head sometimes occupying the senate seat. I’d say the mayor of a small town actually has more real responsibility. A Governor certainly so.

So cast your vote as you will, but if it’s real-world experience and accountability you’re after, honestly examine the facts. If you’re really seeking what you’re arguing for, I can’t see how you’d arrive at anything other than voting the McCain-Palin ticket.

Posted by: Dan | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Democratic tactic, they lie to your face while calling you a liar, I love it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

It's not too late to write in a vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul IS the most experienced and knowledgeable and qualified candidate for president.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Whoopi = stupidest biotch on earth, or close to it...

Posted by: LOL | September 12, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how Obama has been lying from day one of the nomination process (and all his life I suspect), and people here and *cough* the women of the View *cough* are calling McCain a liar.

That is hysterical.

I've known pathological liars before, and Obama is certainly one of them. If you know anything about him, what he reads, what philosophy he follows, he is told to lie, do whatever it takes, to get what you want.

And so he lies...

Posted by: funny | September 12, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Patrick Kelley,

I believe the party you say you are going to vote for is the party of hate and lies. Just dont complain when your gas prices go through the roof and you get laid off because the GOP cares more about their corporate buddies than you. Enjoy voting and if McCain wins dont gripe when nothing changes...You had your chance..

Posted by: American First | September 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

this is for the people who think obamas gonna raise your tax..

1 you make more then 200 k a year? yes you being tax!
thats what 5% in the usa? i dont think i make that much you think your guys make that much? if u do your the one that dont know people who make less then 200k in fact 40k below middle class suffer the most and the irony of this is that we the one that make this country move

about the republican its time to face your stupidity dont get it?: read
Stupidity (also called fatuity) is the property a person, action or belief instantiates by virtue of having or being indicative of low intelligence

aka look it up you republican this country cant go on suffering like this. its a new generation require new tactic new face with a fresh mind:! obamas yes we can
the mccain and palin YES we canT.. they dont even know why they are running no solid plans for anything look it up the word stupidity got it

Posted by: master | September 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

McCain cannot lift his arms above his shoulders, you idiot who commented about sig heil. McCain's arm movement limitations are direct result of his time in war.

Posted by: fred | September 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Dale,

I'm just saying it's disingenuous to say that you oppose earmarks when you actively asked for the money. Sure governors can't decide on earmarks or even tell the congressional delegation how to bring the pork home through earmarks or traditional legislation, but can you really claim innocence when you asked for it. Again, I think this issue is overblown. It doesn't make her a bad person. The denial is making her look worse than the earmarks in my opinion.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN
September 11, 2008
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: helpless people watching life go by, with no balls.... | September 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Scott wrote: "Why the hatred for Palin? More experienced than Obama"
*****************************

You obviously didn't watch her pathetic performance on ABC News last night. She looked like a "pig in the headlights" with every question, trying to remember the "talking points" she had been given.

The Republicans specifically chose Charlie Gibson to do the interview, and she couldn't handle it. I'll believe she's ready when she starts regularly answering unrehearsed questions.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

What a shame that the comments are so polarizing and frankly vicious. Take a look at the facts people and not let your emotions decide for you.

Do your own research and not let the press do it for you nor let mean spirited celebrities tell you how to vote. Look at voting records of all the candidates and where they stand on all the issues. Do not let the debacle of Bush's years in office or the incompetant democraticly controlled of Congress cloud your judgement.

By educating yourself you become the "change" that Washington needs, the "maverick decider".

Posted by: Concerned American | September 12, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I consider The "View" as some kind of “snake pitch”. BDW, last time
I watch Barbara Walters interviewing Hugo Chavez –she didn’t ask him even one “difficult” question. Why ?

Posted by: tad g | September 12, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

class action lawsuits against the

repulsive scammer crowd for fraud, misleading advertisement, and libel....


they _ARE_ selling a product


the _CAN_ be sued.


Politics is not FRAUD based, there are consequences to


DELIBERATE FRAUD....


make them pay, with their economic lives, _end_their_lives_ economically


sue them into oblivion...


take away their futures as they have taken away


YOURS....


.

eat their youn gontoast with a bit of marmalade and cream cheese...


.

Posted by: FILE | September 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

If Cindy McCain says she and her husband never disagreed on anything, then why did she live and raise her children alone in Arizona their whole married lives. 26+ years. What kind of father was he, off in Washington doing the talk shows every weekend? Same with his first wife. Seven children, no daddy. What kind of family values does that show?

Posted by: Nancy in Michigan | September 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"And yet, like the gentleman he is, McCain recieved it with aplomb and actually thanked her for setting the record straight that he ws not going to be bringing back slavery."

Probably another lie from McSlime.

Posted by: tom | September 12, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Why would you even bother to go on that show? Whooooopi is clueless as usual. Who freed the slaves you donkey-loving moron!

Posted by: Mn nice | September 12, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh, those influential "ladies" of The Spew!

Posted by: King Mswati | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN
September 11, 2008
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: helpless people watching life go by, with no balls.... | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Would these ladies nit-pick the records of Obama and Biden in the same way? Of course not! Can you for a second imagine any of them aggressively cross-examining Obama about the contradictory statements he's made about Reverend Wright? Or about his convicted felon neighbor who helped him buy his house? No, these ladies are just liberal lap dogs who pander after the latest inside-the-beltway fad.

Posted by: Frances in Texas | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I will lie, distort, exaggerate, impugn my so called Voracity, not mention my Honor, and crawl a mile thru broken glass, bare a*sed to be the next disaster president of these United States.

I am John McCain and I approve this message!

Posted by: John McCain | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Lying your way in to office - The John McCain Way!

Thanks for being Maverick Liar, Mr McCain, but its not really what we ment by "Change".

Posted by: Sally | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM

ahahah YOU DAMN RIGHT!!! I Love that!

Posted by: Kelly | September 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Who cares about earmarks anyway, they are only one half of one percent of the federal budget, and they are not always bad either. They do contribute to local economies in many cases. I got to the point at one time where I disliked McCain partly but not solely due to this issue.

Now that he's picked Palin, I've changed my mind and I'm voting Republican. All the Democrats have come up with against her are minor issues, if they even amount to that much.

Oh, she's a fundamentalist Christian, boo hoo. Oh, she shouldn't work with that many kids and one of them with Downs Syndrome, which by the way she should have aborted.

Yeah, Dems, keep that up, please. I'm begging you. Keep throwing your little temper tantrums because it's starting to look like the first woman VP will be a Republican, and because most Americans aren't falling for your race-baiting dialogue. Send Obama to Europe one time and keep reminding us of how we should vote for him becasue Europe and the world loves him. See how that works out for ya.

Idiots.

http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Patrick Kelley | September 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Amazing, McCain can real off lie after lie and know that Americans are too stupid and indifferent to care.

Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

So, now we're supposed to vote for McCain because he says he does his own grilling?

Since when do we want "an average person" as the leader of the free world? I thought we wanted "an exceptional person" as our leader?

Posted by: SomeGuy | September 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

class action lawsuits against the

repulsive scammer crowd for fraud, misleading advertisement, and libel....


they _ARE_ selling a product


the _CAN_ be sued.


Politics is not FRAUD based, there are consequences to


DELIBERATE FRAUD....


make them pay, with their economic lives, _end_their_lives_ economically


sue them into oblivion...


take away their futures as they have taken away


YOURS....


.

Posted by: file | September 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The biggest joke is yet to be told!!
It involves half the supposed Obama supporters voting for McCain instead of the 'black guy'. Hilarious. I'll retell it on Nov. 5th.

Posted by: ClintonDem4Cynthia08 | September 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Anytime you let sperm fly, it is never a waste.

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

WAR ribs at COSTCO

Posted by: Lou | September 12, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a liar. Take a look at http://www.therealmccain.com.

The View is always a group of women talking over one another. That's the format.

Am I the only one who thought McCain's wave at the end of the Republican National Convention looked a little more like a "Heil"? Since Bush's grandfather did banking for the Nazi party, I can't help but wonder is the upper echelon of the Republican Party is a group of fanatical religious zealots who want direct legal access to your bedrooms and beliefs.

No more. I only wish the good constituents of the Republican Party would take a closer look. The Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin/Rove tactic is the same as ever... say one thing to distract from doing the opposite.

Posted by: Triangle Man | September 12, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Lying your way in to office - The John McCain Way!

Thanks for being Maverick Liar, Mr McCain, but its not really what we ment by "Change".

Posted by: Sally | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM

ahahah YOU DAMN RIGHT!!! I Love that!

Posted by: Kelly | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, the two McCain ads referenced in the view discussion have been disproved by INDEPENDENT fact check groups not just Obama's campaign.

I actually expected McCain to admit that they were a stretch of the truth or at least admit he was playing hardball like the "community organizer" jabs discussed last night. Even McCain's surrogates who were all over cable news for the last few days complaining about lipstick admitted that Obama didn't mean her but he should have known his audiance would take it that way. As for the sex ed ad, apparently McCain is in support of pedophiles since the Illinois bill was to help kindergartners protect themselves and nothing more. I expected more from McCain, but I guess you do what's necessary to win.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

what books did Palin want to ban? Oh yeah, the unreleased Harry Potter books that JK sent to her for an advanced screening. Gimme a break.

You BO/Biden people are just silly. I mean, I would be utterly embarassed to think that I supported a ticket with a VP candidate who told a poor disabled state politician to "stand up". I mean, didn't Biden even have a who clue who he was talking to? i guess he must have thought he just had one of those "funny chairs with wheels" he's read so much about.

Posted by: scott | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Props to McCain for entering this snake pit. I'm surprised he could get a word in edgewise between Babs and that obnoxious Joy Behar. Despite the best efforts of The View crew I don't think this appearance hurt him at all and may have actually helped in some strange way.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Dale said
"NO GOVERNOR CAN EVER IN ANY WAY TAKE EARMARKS

a governor takes the funding provided them by senators SENATORS procure earmarks for funding because its easier than simply passing a bill for funding."

THAT'S FALSE. Your statement makes the governors look passive in this process. Governors actively lobby their own congressional delegation for earmark money. I know Palin did so, not because of the media reports, but because I'm friends with a person who was one of her lobbyists in DC. Just admit it. She took the money. It doesn't make her a bad person.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM

straight out lie, in fact a governor CANNOT demand earmarks, they can only demand funds (as is stated however veiled in this article).

you can lobby for funds, you can send a lobbyist to get funds, but earmarks are decided by SENATORS.

before earmarks even existed, each state had to pass its own budget bill agreements. this was and is how Washington was focused in the beginning.

i understand your point, and i understand why it seems to be splitting hairs to the populous. but the FACT is that the mccain campaign has NEVER LIED on any of these concepts.

even factcheck.org states that the mccain ads are "TRUE TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS"

and the only lies are the "assumed message" of the ads. which is completely different from person to person.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

ziadora writes "I'm 72 years old. I've had cancer 4 times. I don't know how to use a computer. I left my disabled, first wife for Cindy. I selected Sarah Palin for you. I believe in scare tactics, ridicule, and lies. Please vote for me."

You forgot " .. and I won't bring back slavery"

Did you hear Whoopi Goldberg's comment about that?
It was outrageous. And yet, like the gentleman he is, McCain recieved it with aplomb and actually thanked her for setting the record straight that he ws not going to be bringing back slavery.

Posted by: mediahack | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a joke. The same bs jfk wanna be tax and spend cut and run politics of the ultra libs. Obama should go back to his racist church and his smoke filled rooms of Chicago.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM

hehe.. your a joke as well ..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

McCain and his new found religious right friends are running the biggest scam in American history. It only remains for us to sit back and see if P.T. Barnum was right. Will Americans be foolish enough to buy into this scam? John McCain better be smart enough to take Cindy along to the presidential debate.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 12, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Palin.....Ms. Hubris
In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge combined with a lack of humility. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in the Greek world. The proverb "pride goes before a fall" is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris. In reference to someone being in hubrity: hubrity is a fulfillment of being hubristic or a continual behavior of being prideful. Victor in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein exudes hubris in order to become a great scientist, but is eventually regretting this previous desire. Faustus in Christopher Marlowe's play Dr. Faustus exudes hubris, all the way until his final minutes of life.

Posted by: DUNCAN | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Biden is relaxing, taking the summer off. Palin and McSurge are imploding and self destructing before our very eyes.

They don't need any help from Biden. But if Obama calls him on the Bat phone, help will be on the way.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN
September 11, 2008
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


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

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: helpless people watching life go by, with no balls.... | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

so according to Mcain, Gov Palin NEVER TOOK OR ASKED FOR EARMARKS!
I hope Obama campaign gets film for their next ad.
OK folks, now that the AP and other media are doing there jobs with "fact finding", let's bury McPalin.
Oh? we're a divide nation?
Half (1/3) the country has drunken the koolaid. We got zombies running around. No mercy.

Posted by: ukeman | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Dale: Oh I see how this works. Anything that disagrees with you is 'liberal' and hence wrong, never mind whether it actually IS liberal or not and never mind whether the facts it provides are actually accurate or not. It's liberal, so it's wrong. Right.

Except, it's not. Take the ad that labels Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' comment as being 'Obama on Sarah Palin'. Obama didn't even mention Palin, either directly or indirectly. He was talking about McCain describing his policies as change, in the same way as McCain was talking about Hillary Clinton's healthcare policy (and not Hillary herself) when he used the exact same expression. It's untrue to say Obama said that about Palin, just as it would be untrue to say McCain was talking about Hillary Clinton.

You will of course say he did, but you have absolutely no evidence to support that whatsoever.

Then you've got the ad claiming Obama's 'one achievement' as legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners, when the facts are, he's introduced other education-related legislation himself, this one wasn't his legislation, it didn't become law, and it didn't involve teaching comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. It would be hard for it to be any more untrue.

Those are the facts. You can deny them all you like - it won't change them. Anyone with the intellect and honesty to admit it knows those ads were untrue. McCain has the intellect, but, it would seem, not the honesty these days. As for you, dale, I'm not sure whether you have either.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: SarahReid | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a joke. The same bs jfk wanna be tax and spend cut and run politics of the ultra libs. Obama should go back to his racist church and his smoke filled rooms of Chicago.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Lying your way in to office - The John McCain Way!

Thanks for being Maverick Liar, Mr McCain, but its not really what we ment by "Change".

Posted by: Sally | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

the liberal "ladies" on the view are just like the rest of them: tolerance to all who share their 'views'. otherwise, you get nothing but their venom and hatred. these liberal "elitist" are intellectuals who hail from harvard and yale and think that they know whats best for middle america because they went to the best ivy league schools. the fact is they're completely out of touch with middle america. obama's tax plan is nothing but socialism. why the robin hood take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor? why increase and add to gov spending? to keep the working class and working poor right where they are. and what do these intellectuals really think of small town, middle America? they 'cling to guns and religion.' i mean, heaven forbid anyone actually have faith and turn to prayer. i mean the liberal nutso oberman summed up the liberal view best: Olbermann mocked prayer as he introduced a clip of Palin's words: "Perhaps the fate of the McCain/Palin campaign lies in the hands of a power much greater than America's constitutionally designated democracy. In fact, your votes may not matter at all. Your prayers, however, that's a whole different ball of wax. In our number one story on the Countdown, Sarah Palin, messenger and messiah." Olbermann sarcastically added: "Just like voters in the presidential election. This begs the question, of course, why bother? If you want to get something done, ask the Lord. He or she probably doesn't have much else to worry about besides oil pipelines."
" (www.newsbusters.org)


its funny that the dems had no problem with the economy in the last 8 years when the stock market was soaring, interest rates were at historical lows, and anyone with a pulse could get a house---just like they wanted. but now that the bottom falls out the democratic congress with a whopping 9% approval rating wants to blame the republicans.

despite all the rhetoric, it comes down to several basic principles: republicans: tax less and spend less; smaller government and strong tough stance on national security. dems: more taxes and more spending, bigger government thats in your face (and wallet) and being a pushover throughout the world. and finally, say what you want about the last 8 years but after facing another 9/11 anniversary, i feel proud that the President has managed to keep us safe when so many are out to get us and others. in that time the uk, spain, etc have all faced serious terrorists attacks. my theory, by whatever means necessary protect the citizens of this country. thats what the President has done.

McCain/Palin the only vote worth casting!

Posted by: scott | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM

*Man Shut up with all that ... Vote OBAMA.. your dumb ass needs to go fight the war in Iraq.. I BET you would have a diff view*

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

My god an entertainment show eviscerated McCain. McCain/Palin isn't just bad for America, it's bad for humanity.

Posted by: Scy | September 12, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a fool. Hopefully her husband's team will SUCK this year.

Posted by: HGG | September 12, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Anyone seen Joe Biden?? Is he still waiting for the guy in the wheelchair to stand up?

Posted by: Manny | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM


Waiting for Obama to heal him.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Dale said
"NO GOVERNOR CAN EVER IN ANY WAY TAKE EARMARKS

a governor takes the funding provided them by senators SENATORS procure earmarks for funding because its easier than simply passing a bill for funding."

THAT'S FALSE. Your statement makes the governors look passive in this process. Governors actively lobby their own congressional delegation for earmark money. I know Palin did so, not because of the media reports, but because I'm friends with a person who was one of her lobbyists in DC. Just admit it. She took the money. It doesn't make her a bad person.

Posted by: RCDC | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Sperm hasn't been an issue with McCain for some years now. You can sleep well tonight.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM

Dumb ass.. it means "he is a waste of sperm.. so his dad wasted his sperm" thats what they mean LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Sperm hasn't been an issue with McCain for some years now. You can sleep well tonight.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM

Dumb ass.. it means "he is a waste of sperm.. so his dad wasted his sperm" thats what they mean LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

the liberal "ladies" on the view are just like the rest of them: tolerance to all who share their 'views'. otherwise, you get nothing but their venom and hatred. these liberal "elitist" are intellectuals who hail from harvard and yale and think that they know whats best for middle america because they went to the best ivy league schools. the fact is they're completely out of touch with middle america. obama's tax plan is nothing but socialism. why the robin hood take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor? why increase and add to gov spending? to keep the working class and working poor right where they are. and what do these intellectuals really think of small town, middle America? they 'cling to guns and religion.' i mean, heaven forbid anyone actually have faith and turn to prayer. i mean the liberal nutso oberman summed up the liberal view best: Olbermann mocked prayer as he introduced a clip of Palin's words: "Perhaps the fate of the McCain/Palin campaign lies in the hands of a power much greater than America's constitutionally designated democracy. In fact, your votes may not matter at all. Your prayers, however, that's a whole different ball of wax. In our number one story on the Countdown, Sarah Palin, messenger and messiah." Olbermann sarcastically added: "Just like voters in the presidential election. This begs the question, of course, why bother? If you want to get something done, ask the Lord. He or she probably doesn't have much else to worry about besides oil pipelines."
" (www.newsbusters.org)


its funny that the dems had no problem with the economy in the last 8 years when the stock market was soaring, interest rates were at historical lows, and anyone with a pulse could get a house---just like they wanted. but now that the bottom falls out the democratic congress with a whopping 9% approval rating wants to blame the republicans.

despite all the rhetoric, it comes down to several basic principles: republicans: tax less and spend less; smaller government and strong tough stance on national security. dems: more taxes and more spending, bigger government thats in your face (and wallet) and being a pushover throughout the world. and finally, say what you want about the last 8 years but after facing another 9/11 anniversary, i feel proud that the President has managed to keep us safe when so many are out to get us and others. in that time the uk, spain, etc have all faced serious terrorists attacks. my theory, by whatever means necessary protect the citizens of this country. thats what the President has done.

McCain/Palin the only vote worth casting!

Posted by: scott | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Where is Biden????

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"Liberals now want to ban or censor everything they don't agree with in the name of our own best interests (trans fats, fast food restaurants, Fairness Doctorine, Path to 911 movie to name a few)."

And conservatives like Palin want to ban books.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't Barbara Walters et al pose tough questions to Obama? Man, after the Michelle and Barack interviews I thought for sure Baba had a second career ahead of her with the Akron Racers. Seriously, for you liberals out there, haven't you even noticed that Obama gets the kid gloves treatment from the press. Doesn't that embarrass you at all? The only tough interview Obama has had was the one with O'Reilly. And another thing, don't any of you ladies remember the vicious attacks against McCain during the DNC? It cuts both ways girls. You people really need to grow a pair.

Posted by: Tiger80555 | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Our Obama who art in heaven hallowed be thy name...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It would seem that the Rove style tactics are in full swing this election. You tell boldfaced lies and then simply refuse to admit they are lies no matter how many facts you are presented with. Then when you can you show people what a regular guy/gal you are, and hope that's all they care about.

Anyone remember all the videos of Bush with his chainsaw, what a regular guy. Now we have McCain showing us he grills, and he buys his meat at Costco. Holy cow this is beyond rediculous. McCain is extremely wealthy, not even in the same ballpark as Obama, and McCain has been privileged his entire life. He went to private schools and had admirals and senators visit him at the Naval Academy (which he was flunking out of by the way). I am fairly certain that the only reason he wasn't thrown out of the Academy was due to the infuence of his father and grandfather (both admirals). McCain is about as regular of a guy as Bill Gates.

Posted by: captbilly | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It is intersting that they press McCain on these ads which are true. Obama did vote for a bill in Illinois that would have taught sex education in Kindergarten, for example, you can look up the bill. Yet, when Obama is on the show they let everything go and gush over him. Can anyone say Biased?

Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone think that these ladies would nit-pick the records of Obama and Biden in the same way? Of course not! They would just lap it up, like the liberal lap dogs that they are.

Posted by: Frances in Texas | September 12, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Nice work at pulling back some of the Republican wool they are trying to put over our eyes.

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

McCain is not about anything. Thats all I have to say. Waste of SPERM!

Sperm hasn't been an issue with McCain for some years now. You can sleep well tonight.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Whynot -- does the name Spiro Agnew ring a bell? He had to resign as Vice President:

During his fifth year as Vice President, in the late summer of 1973, Agnew was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Baltimore, Maryland, on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. In October, he was formally charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000, while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, governor of Maryland, and Vice President of the United States. On October 10, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President.

Posted by: Tom Johnson | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I love the post about the EVIL REPUB conspiracy theory and Dick Cheney. I bet Rove and Bush are all a part of the secret satan army trying to kill us all.

Only the birth of the chosen one and his rise to power will save us.. Thank God for Obama... the Messiah.. has returned to save us all and deliver us from evil.

How about you grow up, thow away the comic books and take a ride back on that UFO that abducted you some years ago.

Neither the Dems or Repubs are part of a greater conspiracy. They both have different views.. some more extreme than others. In many ways both candidates have a very similar mesasge. CHANGE.... It's all a matter if it something you can "believe in" or.. change....my record proves it... so don't trust my words but my actions..

Talk is cheap!

Posted by: X-Files | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, McCain couldn't do any worse from being on the View with the audience of the View.

Maybe among the vast audience somewhere, someplace, some member of the audience has cognitive abilities and will vote for McCain.

And to remmebr sadly that Barbara Walters was at one time a Journalist at ABC--pre Jerry Springer, of course.

Posted by: JaxMax | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

-----------

Yes, we have concluded that Sarah Palin is an idiot. Next!

I'm 72 years old. I've had cancer 4 times. I don't know how to use a computer. I left my disabled, first wife for Cindy. I selected Sarah Palin for you. I believe in scare tactics, ridicule, and lies. Please vote for me.

-----------

Posted by: ziadora | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

VOTE for OBAMA! We need a change. When's the last time BUSH or McCain showed their asses in IRAQ? How about they get on the front line. I seriously about it..

Posted by: Jake | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just strap McBush to a lie-detector test and see if he continues that stupid fake smile as his lies come out for everyone to see. I agree, just based on experience - neither candidate is ready for president. So start looking at other factors and what they bring to the table...you're still going to tell me Obama/Biden are not a clear cut choice? Get yourself checked out 'cause something's seriously wrong with you.

Posted by: Macius | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

It would be a good show if Elisabeth Hasselbeck was not on it. I thought they were a bit journalist and did a good job. McCain by him self is lost. He needs all of these surrogates around him to prop up his image and speak for him.

Posted by: Perspective | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow! I can't believe a member of the media actually asked a question that wasn't to the liking of the Republican Party.

You go, Barbara!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

You must watch The View episode. Real Clear Politics has it.
The more I see John McCain, the more I like him.

He treated every question with honest respect and integrity. That's the real John McCain.
It seemed most of the women on the show were expecting somebody else. They have a preconceived warped view of him - probably based on the slanted coverage and treatment he's been getting from the media.

Whoopi Goldberg was classic. You have to watch it.

Posted by: mediahack | September 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Hes full of ISH!

Posted by: NotaMcCainSupporter | September 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

BRAVO BARBARA!!!!

SNL doesn't need write a sketch about Palin, they should just air her robotic, wavering, breathtakingly shallow answers to Charlie Gibson. It's hillarious -- until you think that this candidate for remedial education might actually be the president.

Go to www.BarackObama.com and give money!!! Save the world!

Posted by: Suzanne | September 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

If you want change and for America to return to its former glories, for mercies sake vote Obama in!

Posted by: Kevin | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM

Well that does it for me..if europeans want Obama..then it must make sense!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse


WHILE THE MEDIA DEBATES THE HORSE RACE, WHERE ARE YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES?
TODAY'S NEWS, FROM ACLU.ORG

New FBI Guidelines Open Door to Further Abuse (9/12/2008)

ACLU, Other Advocacy Groups Express Concern After Meeting With Department of Justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
(212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Washington, DC - Following a briefing today at the Department of Justice (DOJ), the American Civil Liberties Union reiterated its deep concern over new guidelines that would govern FBI investigations. The new guidelines would lower standards for beginning "assessments" (precursors to investigations), conducting surveillance and gathering evidence, and would replace existing guidelines for five types of existing guidelines: general criminal, national security, foreign intelligence, civil disorders and demonstrations.

The rewritten guidelines have been drafted in a way to give the FBI the ability to begin surveillance without factual evidence, stating that a generalized "threat" is enough to use certain techniques. Also under the new guidelines, a person's race or ethnic background could be used as a factor in opening an investigation, a move the ACLU believes will institute racial profiling as a matter of policy. The guidelines would also give the FBI the ability to use intrusive investigative techniques in advance of public demonstrations. These techniques would allow agents to conduct pre-textual (undercover) interviews, use informants and conduct physical surveillance in connection with First Amendment protected activities.

"Issuing guidelines that permit racial profiling the day after the 9/11 anniversary and in the midst of an historic presidential campaign is typical Bush administration stagecraft designed to exploit legitimate security concerns for partisan political purposes. Racial profiling by any other name is still unconstitutional," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "The new guidelines offer no specifics on how the FBI will ensure that race and religion are not used improperly as proxies for suspicion, nor do they sufficiently limit the extent to which government agents can infiltrate groups exercising their First Amendment rights. The Bush administration's message once again is 'trust us.' After eight years of historic civil liberties abuses, the American people know better. From the U.S. attorney purges to the abuse of national security letters, the Department of Justice and the FBI have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of policing themselves."

Both the FBI and DOJ have documented records of internal abuse. Recent DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports confirmed long-held suspicions of widespread and systemic abuses of the national security letter statute, and the FBI's involvement in interrogations at Guantánamo Bay. With no outside oversight and with FBI agents acting autonomously, these new guidelines will likely lead to more unchecked abuse.

"Handing this kind of latitude to an organization already rife with internal oversight problems is a huge mistake," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Agents will be given unparalleled leeway to investigate Americans without proper suspicion, and that will inevitably result in constitutional violations. Lowering the threshold for unwarranted surveillance and scrutiny allows the FBI to come perilously close to infringing on the First and Fourth Amendments. Our right to protest the government and its policies is not suspicious behavior; it is constitutionally protected speech. Let's not forget that the reason the FBI adopted internal guidelines was to combat abuse and political spying. They are a direct result of the surveillance of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. To forget that legacy and adopt these ill-conceived guidelines would be a travesty."

Coalition letter sent to Attorney General Mukasey requesting guidelines: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/36730leg20080911.html

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

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

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

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


Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

McSurege either doen't get it, is out of touch, has forgotten, or is lying when he claims Palin did not seek pork barrel money.

I don't care which his choice is but he has to take ownersip of his incorrect reponse with one of these reasons.

Of course we aren't voting for him anyways so who really gives a fat rat's @ss.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Well no wonder he buys ribs at costco, after buying those expensive-expensive shoes, there might not be much money left over :-)

Posted by: Neerja | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse


Barbara Walters lost all credibility a long time ago by allowing this show to become a shrieking vacuous liberal outpost of pampered women.

They did not allow McCain the time to answer questions, instead talked over eachother, each trying to get their ridiculous jabs in.

I suggest that McCain avoid dopey daytime tv shows and instead make an appearance on a quality, high-rated daytime show like "The Young and the Restless."

:)

Posted by: scary women | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Is Sarah Palin the first VP candidate to possibly be indicted? I honestly cannot think of another candidate this has happened to.

History being made.

Posted by: Whynot | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Personally from across the Atlantic, Britain honestly dosent know why Americans support Mccain. He is simply the Bush administration campaigning under a different banner.All full of lies and deceit. Did you at the Republican convention hear of the ways they intend to change the economy, the health service,education! not a word!! If you want another 8 years of failure vote Mccain. If you want change and for America to return to its former glories, for mercies sake vote Obama in!

Posted by: Kevin | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

jim,

one thing, his temper has never been for an equal, he has only ever had a documented temper with people working under him. essentially hes an angry boss, that is a great quality in a leader, especially if his staff can learn to respect his anger.

i think its rather clear that this view experience proves he has no problem holding his temper in and being humble in those instances where its necessary.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"LOL. Wow, it took that long for someone to bring up that old, over used fact that McSame was a POW. If being a POW automatically qualifies people to be President, we should ask all those people in Gitmo to run...."

Posted by: Bob | September 12, 2008 4:19 PM

Gee Bob...lighten up.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"Liberals now want to ban or censor everything they don't agree with in the name of our own best interests (trans fats, fast food restaurants, Fairness Doctorine, Path to 911 movie to name a few)."

Great point; I read an interesting analysis of this behavior by author David Klinghoffer recently. This excerpt is worth sharing: "['Moralesque' is] a burlesque of morality. No society can do without a code of rules to live by. It’s our nature. So when they turn away from the ancient code of the Bible, a substitute needs to be found. That’s the code of moralesque. It makes things like health and diet — which traditionally would have been left to personal discretion — into these very, very heavy moral commandments. Being fat isn’t just unwise. It’s a moral offense. Same for smoking, drinking, etc. This is the Purell culture, the peanut-free school culture. Health becomes a substitute theater of moral action, taking the place of the things that really matter."

Posted by: Bix Dugan | September 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

McCain is not about anything. Thats all I have to say. Waste of SPERM!

Posted by: BeverlySmith | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

These ladies do not get a lot of credit but they asked some of the toughest questions of the candidate that I've seen. In fact they actually challenged him on substantive matters unlike most of the so called 24 hour news interviewers.

What make them great is that they don't appear to be too focused on their own egos but instead focused on ensuring that Americans get answers to the questions that matter. Way to go ladies!

Posted by: James - Los Angeles | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

It is astonishing that McCain can be so bold in lying about the lies. Clearly he has been indoctrinated by Karl Rove or his disciples that you really can get away with it. We get irritated with the press for not being blunt about blatant lies, but even when they do get blunt, McCain lies. If someone in public were to really push him on it, he will melt down in fury. I think this is what should happen. Otherwise he will get away with it.

Posted by: Bob Keteyian | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I want Obama to come out of the (racist) closet and tell America how he could sit in Trinity Church pews listening to Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and not know what was going on all around him.
Obama is a racist and this is not going away. Videos and more information will be revealed next month.

Posted by: Loren | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The guy spent 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp...you think being questioned by 4 women was a problem??? And one is named "Whoopie"!!!!!

Get real.

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


LOL. Wow, it took that long for someone to bring up that old, over used fact that McSame was a POW. If being a POW automatically qualifies people to be President, we should ask all those people in Gitmo to run....

Posted by: Bob | September 12, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Mike in Sac

"like all you other Republicans, believe Americans are idiots and can be manipulated into voting against their own interests and against what they believe in."

No Mike, not all Americans, just uniformed idiots without a clue, such as yourself...

Posted by: ronmac | September 12, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

What is going on with McCain? I am for Obama, because I believe in what he has to offer, but I still liked McCain and have always respected him. I always thought that McCain was more honorable than the way that he has been behaving lately. I can't figure out why is he keeping telling the same lies over and over and over again, even after his hand has been called on it. Has he begun believing the lies of his campaign? It is sad...I hate to see him trash his reputation and honor. Anyone know what has changed him?

Posted by: kd oklahoma | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

mike in sac,

im not stealing a thing, bushes fiscal policys have been compared to democratic policies for the last year and a half. obama suggests the exact same concept, a focused tax cut on a specific people and using that tax cut and an overbudget policy to somehow increase motivation amongst teh poor?

it doesnt work, we have had 8 years of it, and its the exact same thing over and over.

i did not vote for bush because i did not agree with his economic policies and look were we are, obama suggests teh same policies and i wont vote for that either.

why would i vote for a policy i denied before just because its a fresh face?

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

WOW! The Obama people are in full panic.
The reason that Governors are usually the people we choose to run the government is because Senators are usually NOT used to making executive desisions. The last Senator elected president was JFK. Can you say"Bay of Pigs"? At least we would have a Govenor VP.

Posted by: P.Zahn | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

In response to John Q, Cryos wrote: I love these types of posts from both sides. If you are a republican you are a wedge issue voter. No "real" republican could vote for a borderline marxist socialist since it goes against the basic premises of small government and low spending.

Cryos, are you not aware that when Bush came into power and for the first 6 years of his admin, your repubs were responsible for the largest growth in government and spending in history? It is so easy to resort to name-calling (whoa, we're all so scared) when you obviously have a short memory regarding the abuses of your own party.

Posted by: jimimosey | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Jim..are you off your meds again???

Posted by: Manny | September 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

the ladies of the View seem to be better at this then the cable news guys. They actually seem to be paying attention to things that matter and get what those things might mean to all of us.

Posted by: Liv | September 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I love it. What the media doesn't get, is americans are sick and tired of it all. I'm voting Mccain, but believe me, I got just as sick over the lipstick bs. My vote has to do with my beliefs, and NOTHING, will change that. You may not agree with me, but people respect you for standing up for what you believe. Trust me, when a candidate takes the high road, he or she is better off. I know some loons and the media may not agree, and truthfully they can't help themselves, but americans of all political sides are sick of it.

Posted by: Truth | September 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I used to respect McCain, but he put his own ambition above our national security. He's a liar.

Posted by: sunnyday1 | September 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

dale, go to the independent site factcheck.org and read about those ads. Go to the independent site politifact.com and read about those ads.

They are lies. Full stop.

If you still want to claim they're true, here's a challenge for you: find one, just one, reputable site (i.e. not someone's blog) that's looked at those ads and concluded they're true. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting though.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 4:02 PM


factcheck.org has been labled as the MOST LIBERAL FACTCHECK SIGHT ON THE WEB as early as teh 2000 election.

seriously you need to research more before you state your arrogance.

presidential ads HAVE TO go through thorough fact checking so that they aren't smear ads. you cant just air "obama sucks" over and over and over.

these ads have not been in ANY WAY given ANY PROOF that they are even remotely false. in fact no sight other than the most liberal fact check sights and the most blatantly liberal media even accuse them of being false.

the ads in fact SHOULD BE MORE CRUEL because there is a ton that we dont know about obama that we should.

the view is the most obvious place, but the rest of the media is playing into the same roll, not thoroughly showing americans the REAL ISSUES.

obama has never done a good job in any of his rolls from community organizer to senator. he has simply settled for C average in everything.

and that is teh full point these ads make.

if you want lies, go search for obamas campaign contributions, where he has direct contributions from tony rezko, AND LIED ABOUT IT 4 TIMES BEFORE DISCLOSING HE HAD 250K THEN ONLY GOT RID OF 80K AFTER HAVING MADE OVER 600MIL.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I just don't understand. Why doesn't anyone ask him these questions? John McCain was in the enemy's hands for five and one-half years. He acknowledged that they broke him, just how much we don't know. The enemy was, at the time, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany and the Soviet Union, plus a multitude of smaller communist countries. Mr. McCain was in their hands and was tortured by them, not for information you understand. Did they make him a MOLE? The CIA was researching and experimenting with "brain-washing" techniques at the time, so was the ENEMY, all of them. The Russians, Cubans and the Chinese routinely assisted the North Vietnamese in "questioning" the POWs that were in their hands. They used drugs in their interrogations. I have known many X-POWs from Vietnam and I even had one as a business partner for over five years that spent 7 1/2 years as a POW. I heard the stories about "quiz time" from him, read that as "torture time". They weren't tortured for information, it is well known that any information was worthless 24 hours after their capture. They were tortured for "other" reasons. We (military personnel) were all trained for what to do after being taken prisoner. McCain has his choice to come home, but he had Stockholm syndrome and chose to stay and be tortured some more. One thing I noticed, all of the X-POWs that I knew were obsessed with the fact of their imprisonment. Stories were repeated daily. Some feel "special" like McCain, some don't. All X-POWs were affected with PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Like most Vietnam Vets, PTSD and other emotional difficulties were hidden or not discussed at discharge and most never got treated for their disability. Can anyone tell me that McCain was unaffected? We all know he was affected. A temper is a good indicator, so I have been told by doctors at the Veteran's Affairs Hospital in Richmond. Believe me, I thank Mr. McCain for his service. But we shouldn't trust him just because of his obsession with being president, it might be some kind of order his torturers made during his torture sessions. A sort of Hanoi Candidate. Has anyone else thought of this? I am a registered republican in case anyone is wondering.

Posted by: JIm | September 12, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

obama has no experience to be the president of the u.s. period. palin has no experience to be vp of the u.s. period. comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. for people to say that obama is experienced enough - it is a conviction made out of pure emotion. obamaa holds grudges - that is evident when he decide not to vet or even consider hillary for the vp slot. now he reaping the turmoil because he picked biden. i am undecided. both camps will have to do a lot more convincing for my part. obama is so-o-o vague. he just talks in generalities. he is so anxious about winning, he has forgotten about anything else. i don't like mccains policies much, but at least he has experience. fighting each other with pettiness doesn't get it with me. talk policy and specifics.

Posted by: mary | September 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

This piece was fairly amusing, it rather sizzled with the scorn of women grilling John McCain. I have always like Barbara Walters, but especially her style of questioning. Remember on Saturday Night Live (years ago) when they would parody BaBa Walters?

I was LOL by the time I got to end of this piece, when McCain declared his cooking secrets! I wonder if he puts lemon juice on his meat, is it still just red meat? (When you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig!).

Meanwhile, in the Arizona sun, McCain can still perfect his skin cancer, while cookin' up some ribs.

Posted by: rmorris391 | September 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Watch this Defenders of Wildlife ad about Sara Palin and her support for shooting wolves from the air and leaving them to die an agonizing death in the snow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Dear Dale,

I see the you follow the Republican tactics very closely. Stating lies again and again so that people will hear them enough and begin to believe.

So bizarre that you are also taking the Repub tactic of stealing the Dems strategy. Trying to make Obama to be more like Bush than McCain is just a freak show.

McCain wants to make the Bush tax cut permanent and Obama does not. That is a different economic policy.

Obama wants to shift the economy of our country into green industries. That is vastly different from Bush and McCain. It addresses the economy and future of our country. McCain doesn't even have a plan on energy except for gimmicks like gas tax holidays and drilling that won't amount to anything.

Obama believes in gender equality and McCain clearly has a poor record. Overturn Roe v. Wade, no equal pay support, and his gorilla jokes, calling his wife a C***, and cutting her off during an interview all reflect poorly.

The list goes on. There are stark differences between McCain and Obama on policy issues. McCain has positions that are complete opposites of the majority of Americans. That is why they are running a campaign of lies, distortions, attacks, and "personality". They have nothing else.

You are nothing but a hack.
You are not somebody that has one ounce of credibility as you are an ideologue and a liar. But then you, like all you other Republicans, believe Americans are idiots and can be manipulated into voting against their own interests and against what they believe in.

Go back to your FOX posts.

Posted by: Mike in Sac | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Bush Doctrine has 922,000 hits on Google, sure some since Palin stumbled on it, but still it is pretty well known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Uh, Dale, you clearly are not doing investigation on your own. There are many (more than one) independent institutions that have proven, beyond a doubt, that these ads are smears, and outright lies. Clearly, you want more of the same in the next president, as we have had in the current one: more lies.

Posted by: To Dale | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Whoopie Goldberg made a very typical statement coming from a Black American:

To be a "Strict Constitutionalist" is to suggest that we return to the institution of slavery.

Well Whoopie guess what?

I heard Barack Obama with my own ears, live at an event he gave in February of 2008 here in Las Vegas, claim that he was a "strict constitutionalist".

It was at that point that I walked out of the hall in disgust and it was the capper that drove my vote completely away from Barack Obama.

He will say anything to get elected.

I am just Jose Q Public but I don't intend to let this one die.

I am going to call the McCain campaign and tell them about this incident. I am prepared to swear on a stack of a million Bibles and a million constitutions that Obama said this.

Thanks Whoopie. It's a great talking point.

Posted by: MexNobama | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I'd really like to see some real debate on these issues in the comments, rather than the usual "if you don't agree with me than you're an idiot" dialogue I'm seeing.
How are we ever going to make anything better if we don't start respecting each other?

Posted by: Lisa | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Anyone seen Joe Biden?? Is he still waiting for the guy in the wheelchair to stand up?

Posted by: Manny | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Olympia Snow?

Wow.

Posted by: Mike Lynch | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

When a society and culture promote, embraces, and adopts "affirmative action" (which is nothing more than a euphemism for racism and sexism), has the US has done over the last thirty years, you get Obama and Palin. Each side (Democrat and Republican) sees the ineptitude and incompetence of the other candidate, but not of their own. As the old saying goes: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed person rules".

Posted by: dr.paolucci | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Remember all the importance put on "associates" early in the campaign - wright, etc.

McCains campaign is stocked full of lobbyists and sleaze artists from the bush camp. Like they say, you are who you associate with.

Mr. McCain sacrificed his honor and integrity this election. I'm tired of his games - I want to hear solutions.

I can't even consider mccain palin as serious options because they're representing exactly what I seen for the last 8 years. They're obviously the problem, not part of the solution.

Posted by: Jilli | September 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Lol all the posts on this thread validate my assertion of what has happened to liberalism although I do realize blogs like this bring out the misguided 14 year olds and don't represent an accurate cross section.

Bias and attacking a republican candidate suddenly makes people "qualified, competent journalists" but if they questioned Obama or Biden in the same way they would be "rovian, right wing" blah blah blah.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to Barbara Walters for the job she did calling that charlatan McCain out. He wormed his way on to 'The View' as he grovels and panders for the women's vote. Now he has been exposed before the very same group for no substance, dishonorable, empty suit and Washington fossil he really is.

Posted by: str8up | September 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Let's be clear about the plane...

"The Westwind II jet had been bought for $2.7m in 2005 by Mrs Palin's predecessor as governor, Frank Murkowski."

It was listed on eBay for $2.5m.

"Mr Reynolds paid only $2.1m for the aircraft, and now wants $50,000 from the Alaskan taxpayer to cover maintenance costs."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sale-of-alaskas-state-jet-on-ebay-revealed-as-a-lie-922493.html


"The sale of the Jet: In all fairness when have you ever taken a used vehicle and sold it for more than you paid for it?

It's called "depreciation"

So she sold it for less, big deal.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM"

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

to Bill, the Mktg professor:

Since you've spent so much time looking at McCain's 'brand' erosion, I just wondered what your opinion would be on the impact to the "Obama brand" by:

- Obama running on a theme of "change", and then choosing a running mate who's been in Washington longer than McCain.

- Obama running on a theme of bringing troops home from Iraq as soon as possible, and then picking a running mate whose idea for Iraq was panned by both sides and would have required troops to stay indefinitely.

- Obama continually talking about wanting to keep the campaign about "issues", and then releasing an ad today making fun of old people which probably won't find a lot of love in the critical swing state of Florida.

- Obama talking about the lack of compassion among Republicans, but his tax records show he and his running mate give less to charity than the average American.

How does all of that work into your "brand calculator" for Obama?

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Once again for some unknown reason John McCain has chosen to lie about things that can be easily checked. He lied about Gov. Palin's use of earmarks, he lied about Obama use of "Lipstick on a Pig," he lied about Obama's role in sex education to name just a few. The are obvious lies that can be believed only by those who are out of touch with reality. They are also consistent lies. The question comes down to do you want a President who is a habitual lair? A person who is apparently incapable of leveling with the American people. A person who cannot be trusted by congress, the courts, foreign leaders or his own constituents? If you want such a habitual liar then vote for Sen. McCain. McCain has tragically chosen to torpedo his own honor. He does not deserve to be President.

Posted by: Louis | September 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Cryos, there is no such thing as Bush doctorine. it was a trick question.

The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense

Posted by: Cousin Vinny | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Dear Bill:

It is very obvious you "teach" marketing but obviously were not successful in the "real world" applying it. The Obama Brand is "change". It is a great concept but he is off message and he has damaged his brand very seriously and the Dems have hurt him more than help him. Every time he or they attack it proves that the politics of old are alive and well. Where is the change???

McCain also has a great brand strategy.. A Maverick. An independent thinker. The best part of it is he didn't brand himself.. The Dems did. They loved McCain for years and years.He picked a VP that backs up his claim and both have practiced what they preach. McCain has strenthened his brand and his image over time despite the attempts to tarnish it.

It's the same as Coke and Pepsi wars if you are old enough to remember it from the 80's. I guess McCain is so lod he can't remember and Obama would thinks why would anyone pick Pepsi over Coke ( sorry Barry.. wrong coke! )

Pepsi was hip and cool ( like Obama ) but Coke won the war becuase it was classic value and consumers remembered it was the " REAL THING"

Posted by: MarketMan | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

This is why no one should go on the view. They fawn over Empy Suit Obama & his wife and besmerch & attack a real Presidential Candidate & a Governor with an 80% approval rating from her state.

They lost my 'view' forever.

Posted by: ztormtra | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Jeez! The View is where the truth will out.

What is up with the MSM on McSame? Ooops I forgot they're all in bed with tjhe GOP, including much of the staff of the WaPo!

The MSM went along with the run-up to the War, now they're at again with McSame. Where are Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford when we need 'em?

Posted by: Rooflestoon | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Lying seems to come to this man very naturally. Either that or he really did not vet Palin. How else could he make this elementary error?

Posted by: RC | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

What does the dough boy have to say about change when he is employing the same tactics as the Evangelical Party has used in the last two elections to deny American a vote and use Jim Crow tactics against American citizens?

VOTING MANIPULATION

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

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

State election rules allow parties to assign "election challengers" to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they "have a good reason to believe" that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a "true resident of the city or township."

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

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

This is just part of a "comprehensive voter-challenge campaign" Michigan Republicans are launching this year, which will coordinate with the regional McCain campaign to train volunteers in challenging those who wish to vote on Election Day. (Whether the foreclosure-driven scheme will be implemented statewide is unclear.)

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


THIS IS THE SAME TYPE OF THING THE DID TO DENY SOLDIERS SERVING IN IRAQ THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE IN PAST ELECTIONS.

Posted by: basementfrog | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I THINK THE WAY BARBARA YELLED AND GOT IN MC CAIN FACE WAS SICK . SHE DIDNT EVEN GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO ANSWER HER QUESTIONS. I CANT BELIVE HOW RUDE THEY WHERE TO MC CAIN THEY WERE SO NICE TO BARACK WHEN HE WAS ON THERE. IT WAS SICK, THEY ACTED LIKE HE WAS SOME KIND OF KING. THEY SHOULD HAVE TREATED MCCAIN LIKE THAT IF IT WASNT FOR GUYS LIKE MCCAIN WE MIGHT NOT BE HERE TODAY. I VOTED DEMOCRAT ALL MY LIFE BUT THAT WELL CHANGE THIS YEAR, GO MCCAIN.GOOD LUCK TO ALL YOU BARACK FANS YOU WELL NEED IT IF HE GET IN AS PRESIDENT. ANNA

Posted by: anna w. | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how fast these comments get off track. Bickering like morons does not solve the United States' obvious problems. Also, the women on the view are not women that anyone should listen to, as they represent barely a minority opinion--as do all celebrities. Why don't you go out and take a survey of bums, blue collar workers, and low level management (the overwhelming majority); then you can mold your opinion.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"Why does everyone have to piss on liberals? Is it a bad thing to want basic freedoms and individual choices?"

You're talking about "classic liberals" not the hypocritical idealist eutopia religion that liberalism has become.

Liberals now want to ban or censor everything they don't agree with in the name of our own best interests (trans fats, fast food restaurants, Fairness Doctorine, Path to 911 movie to name a few).

All sense of individualism has been lost with liberals also it is now about "unity" IE everyone thinking the same way and making fringe extremist views mainstream.

Republicans have the same problem with neo-cons and religious conservatives but people are fooling themselves if they think liberals are any better.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Do the right thing and vote 3rd party. Republicans and democrats are the same, they offer no real change..same views about Iraq, same on Liberty, same on the deficit, same on the economy and the Fed. If you want a circus and downward spiral of the US vote for one of these 2 clowns. Otherwise do some research and vote for 3rd party. More than 50% of the US doesn't want either candidate so we can make a difference. Vote for someone you actually believe in not one that was chosen for you by the media. Campaignforliberty

Posted by: ck | September 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

dale, go to the independent site factcheck.org and read about those ads. Go to the independent site politifact.com and read about those ads.

They are lies. Full stop.

If you still want to claim they're true, here's a challenge for you: find one, just one, reputable site (i.e. not someone's blog) that's looked at those ads and concluded they're true. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting though.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Why does the view have more substance than the main stream media? pretty lame

Posted by: country first | September 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Schmit and Rove campaign ads scare everyone because they are branding the Media as “Piranhas!”, Democrats are “Wolves” and talented Artists are just lite “Celebrities” without talent and their voice doesn't count. Schmidt and Rove have branded Palin as their Barracuda and Pit Bull. Now Schmit and Rove are attempting to play the victim when ever the Democrat's response or the mainstream media starts asking the questions that are on the minds of the voters.

This will be the election that will be studied by historians. How did they do it? They took out everyone with negative ads and then created their own celebrity who is running on a open playing field now. Barracuda and Pit Bull running down field carrying the football. Can a goldfish stop them. I'm checking out a video - Trained Goldfish Performs Amazing Tricks!!. Can all talking dogs stop them? I look at the video -Talking Dogs. This election may decided by a gold fish and all talking dogs taking on Schmidt and Rove's Barracuda and Pit Bull. I have faith in the gold fish who says “No worries Team. Everything is going to be all right!” Our Goldfish runs onto the playing field to take on Schmidt and Rove's Barracuda. A determined mutt joins our gold fish to take on Schmidt and Rove's Pit Bull.

Democrats and Obamacans's courting all Republican and Independent Voters!

Over 70 retired generals and admirals have endorsed Obama/Biden '08

Hope and Change backed by strength.

Our World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY

Obamacan's - “The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”
William F. Buckley, Jr. quote

The real change team for the last 19 months
Change we can believe in.

Vote Obama/Biden '08


Posted by: Cooday | September 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like we need to get Sarah Palin on "The View," because the odds of four women being accused of sexism for asking tough questions should be lower than if she'd been asked them by a man... right?

Posted by: phfyrebyrd | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

It is sad when the most competent journalists in the USA are comedians on a women's talk show. Congratulations to Behar for actually questioning a candidate to back up their mis-statements (lies in this case) rather than just repeating them.

I agree with Behar that McCain has joined the "agents of intolerance" that he used to buck against, or is his new evangelism just another lie to get elected?

Posted by: Rodney | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

you dems crack me up. Why the hatred for Palin? More experienced than Obama. In fact, it is easily argued that she is more qualified than Bill Clinton was. Alaska's GDP is 6th in the US while Arkansas' is 48th. Econmy, education, national guard, budget responsibility...Obabma has had none. He has voted present alot though, and is an entertaining speaker.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

8 years ago, I watched John McCain's presidential bid and said, "This is a guy I can believe in." A lifelong Democrat, with leanings towards fiscal conservatism, I recognized in McCain a strength and willingness to buck the system -- and it was a system that needed bucked.

This year, I voted for Hillary in the primaries, mainly because I liked her husband when he was Prez. But as McCain's campaign gelled, I was reminded of how much I liked him 8 years ago, and had every intention of finally getting to vote for him (which I would have done 8 years ago). That was until he buckled under to the Republican base, chose a theocratic neophyte for a running mate, and started using the exact same tactics that he accused the Bush/Cheney/Rove campaign of using on him 8 years ago.

If McCain really wanted my vote, he'd have chosen a much better running mate. And if he was so hell-bent on running a woman, why not choose someone with honor, integrity, and experience. Had he chosen, say, Olympia Snowe, I'd be right there. But his choice of Palin (and obvious lack of vetting), his pandering to the theocrats on his extreme right, and allowing his campaign to follow the same path that defeated him 8 years ago, and question the ethics of his own party....all this has me thinking that maybe I was wrong about him.

Say what you will about Obama (and you will, and incessantly), lately he at least APPEARS to be the candidate with integrity.

Posted by: PingPongPang | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

LoL.Obama will win!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The new Magoo/Palin Axis of Evil:

1. Russia
2. Eye-Ran
3. FactCheck.org

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Face it you ignorant nascar fans without degree's, your 'boy' (whos older than hell) got the s**t beat out of him by 5 women and your girl doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is? I have 5th graders who know what that is."

Yes the Obama and Obama supporter condescending attitude. Keep it up let everyone in "flyover country" let you know that they are all ignorant hicks who need the enlightened liberals in NYC, LA and DC to make up their minds for them.

I'm not surprised that 5th graders would know since the liberal indoctrination in education now is sickening.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

people get a clue, the fact that the commercials remain on the air is a testament to their truth.

just because obama says they are false, and his liberal media buddies agree, doesn't make it valid in any sense.

grow up, decide for yourself, and stop factchecking on barackobama.org

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Why does everyone have to piss on liberals? Is it a bad thing to want basic freedoms and individual choices? Better than the fascism Bush has been selling you guys.

Posted by: Canada | September 12, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

How laughable that the View crowd gets tough.When the Obama's go on the show they treat him like a Prince/Rock star. Hanging on his every word. When Michells Obama goes on the show she gives them a list of things that they are not allowed to ask her about. Cindy McCain didn't do that.

This show is stacked with lefties,except for one frail conservative who they just shout down. Barbara Walters should be ashamed that she and her show are such a joke. Stick to entertainment news. You are too biased to do anything else.

Posted by: independent guy | September 12, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I only watch The View with the sound off. It's on the monitors at my health club in the morning, and when I'm working out it's amusing to watch the "V's" without audio. I miss Rosie O'Donnell, though-- I imagined her behind me chasing me and it was good for another .2 mph on the treadmill.

Posted by: Bix Dugan | September 12, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

sheryle, let me remind you of a couple of other consitutional amendments that were pretty unpopular and were considered government infringement in private affairs - the 13th and the 19th. Look them up.

Frankly, I don't see outlawing abortion becoming a constitutional amendment, though it would have a fair amount of popular support, so you can get over that - regardless of a candidate's views on the subject, he's not going to change things that drastically in 4 yrs.

What's more telling to me is that Obama and Biden - in direct challenge to almost 2000 years of christian teaching (all the way back to the Didache) are pro choice. In Biden's case, it's also in direct challenge to his own "belief". I find that deeply hypocritical.

Do I have problems with the McCain/Palin ticket? Sure do. But that isn't one of them. I find them both to be sincere and committed on that issue, even (in Palin's case) when she had to make a personal decision about it.

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Let me begin with...Hillary should have been the presidential candidate.So now that this is out of the way I will tell you how disappointed I am in this bunch of overpaid ladies.They are so up Obama's...nose,it's an embarassment.The View is becoming a women's version(and I use this word loosely),of the Jerry Springer Show.I am glad I stopped watching this horrible train wreck.It' time to shut this yakfest down.

Posted by: Toni | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

He looked so old. Like an old guy who was tired of lying all the time.

Posted by: james | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"Neither of these people have experience being a president, nor McCain or Palin. Cheney's experience useful? Bush's, Rummy's and all those neocons running the white house useful? NO!! We need new kind of experience for the 21st century kind of experience. That's my friend is Mr. Obama's experience."

Posted by: bigben1986 | September 12, 2008 3:54 PM

So based on your comment Palin would make a great president!!

Posted by: Manny | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"I have no idea who I am going to vote for - but with this amount of bias and hatred - not to mention the hysterical Whoopi Goldberg screaming of "you're going to make us all slaves again?" - I like Obama less and less, more because of his supporters than because of him."

The last couple years the MSM has just gotten more and more blatently bias to the point they don't care if people see it. Fortunately I think more and more people are recognizing this and factoring into their judge of candidates. I guess at least the blatent bias is better in ways than the previous masked bias which a lot of people couldn't see through.

This year Hillary also got to feel what it is like to be a republican in the MSM.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

More these NorthEast media attacks McCain and Sarah....

...more votes are cast in their favor

How long will it take the liberals to get the point?

People watch celebrity, they don't let them run their life

Posted by: Seed of Change | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Our country was formed because good people from Europe, mostly GB, wanted freedom - particularly religious freedom. Now we have two people running saying 'country first' when they are letting their religious outdated views guide them. The separation of church and state was just important in the 1700's as it is now. The republicans = McBush and the moron who looks decent (not great) in a skirt are doing just that. Overturn Roe V. Wade???? Why not just envoke slavery again?

Mark Warner said it best: "Imagine in 4 months to have an administration who ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN SCIENCE".

I bet if the inexperienced, under-educated cheerleader from AK were to get pregnate by rape her views would be different.

Face it you ignorant nascar fans without degree's, your 'boy' (whos older than hell) got the s**t beat out of him by 5 women and your girl doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is? I have 5th graders who know what that is. What does that say about you? Your thinking - or lack of? And the worst part is if you actually knew anything, you all (y'all) will be the ones most negatively affected by electing McBush!

Posted by: Constitution | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Earmarks alone are not a bad thing. They are the sign of a leader doing whatever it takes to satisfy his or her constituents.

The problem with McCain and Palin is that they are portraying themselves as above the system when, in fact, they are byproducts of the system.

-----------

I'd agree that earmarks alone probably aren't necessarily inherently bad. McCain thinks they are inherently bad, and maybe he's right. I do have a lot of respect for him for refusing to take federal money for local projects.

Still, the cost of the war in Iraq is over 6x what we pay in earmarks each year. That doesn't excuse wasteful spending, and I do like McCain's style on this issue, but it does sort of put things into perspective. Being smart about Iraq in 2003 would have saved us way more money.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

What?!

How dare the women of The View question McCain about Palin... or about McCain himself!

Obviously the women of The View are sexist!!!

Posted by: corbett | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Finally, somebody had the guts to confront McCain about his lies. Way to go, Babs and Joy.

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Jeff - reality check again. McCain has said repeatedly that he would seek a CONSTIUTIONAL AMENDMENT to make ALL abortion, for ANY reason, illegal. He isn't seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, simply our rights to chart our own life course via the constitution.

Posted by: sheryle | September 12, 2008 3:49 PM

reality check hun, no republican candidate in history has passed such partisan legislation with a majority of democrats in congress.

there is no doubt that the congress will be even more heavily democrat based come the election.

whether that is his case or not (which he states quite candidly is not) he couldn't possibly pass that legislation.

its a stupid fear tactic.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd...Obama is not ready to be president!" -- Manny
Neither of these people have experience being a president, nor McCain or Palin. Cheney's experience useful? Bush's, Rummy's and all those neocons running the white house useful? NO!! We need new kind of experience for the 21st century kind of experience. That's my friend is Mr. Obama's experience.

Posted by: bigben1986 | September 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

This is too Priceless!

McCain: Mayors & Governors Do Not Have National Security Experience! Then why did he give us Sarah Paliin?

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

McCain is the Wizard of Oz and is unable to tell the truth until the Curtin is pulled back.

Posted by: Angellight | September 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin looks more like a Tina Fey impersonator after a long night of running around in the snow with a rifle and Bullwinkle’s scalp strapped to her head. McCain’s wife looks like an Amy Poler look-alike only with a tacky sense of fashion and a meth problem. Are they running a campaign, or are they on the road promoting the "Baby Mama" DVD release with their former SNL guest host (aired on October 12, 2002, with musical guest, The White Stripes), John Sidney McCain?

Posted by: Miss World | September 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"What profit will a person have if he gains the whole world, but destroys himself or is lost?"

I hope McCain thinks it's all worth it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The democratic party is a joke. Obama is clueless. If he does make it into office I can't wait to see him fail which he will indeed do. Obama isn't going to change anything. The democrats have been in the senate for over a year and what has happened the economy got even worse then it was. Wake up people Obama, McCain it doesnt matter who is in office were still going to be in the same boat at least with McCain we will have some honor.

Posted by: Come On | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Those sexist Women asking McCain hard questions!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"As much as I dislike the women on The View, they won the debate today, McCain didn't say anything of substance or justify his pig lipstick commercial. So far in this campaign McCain has not offered any answers, just rhetoric.
I'm a 3rd generation republican from a very conservative catholic family. I have always voted with my party but this year i am going to have to vote for obama. Why? Because he at least is trying to offer some answers and solutions.

Posted by: John Q"

I love these types of posts from both sides. If you are a republican you are a wedge issue voter. No "real" republican could vote for a borderline marxist socialist since it goes against the basic premises of small government and low spending.

Posted by: Cryos | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I teach a graduate course on marketing, and I think McCain is running the risk of losing the value of his brand.

If you treat both McCain and Obama as brands for a moment, then I think you might see why the candidates have behaved they way they do.

Obama has sought to give the impression that he is a leader of a new politics, that he will reach across the aisle, that the politics of the past do not serve us well in the future. It would have been counter to brand to do pointless attack ads without substance in response to McCain. It would have reduced the brand value of Obama. -- By the way, that is why Obama responded quickly to the pig attack--to preserve his brand value.

McCains most recent attacks are going to diminish his brand value. Notice that during the Republican convention, the only brand displayed was "McCain", and he made his point that he was running against or had run against his party--he was creating his own identity or brand.

If you work from the position of competing on brand identity, the last thing you want to do is be associated with sleazy tactics or ads. You may get a bump with the ad, the loss of your reputation or brand value remains long after the ad no longer runs (after it had been shot down by the press).

Todays candidates are running on their own brand identity, and not the identity of their party (especially so towards independents). In the past you could rely on brand identity of the party to "fix" mistake (to fill in for your errors.) Today, if you lose it, you lose it for yourself.

I hope McCain keeps up his adoption of Bush tactics and Obama continues to respond as he has. The McCain brand is at risk of being merged into the Rove/Bush brand.

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I can't imagine a more biased review of McCain's appearance. Obama's press secretary would have been more even handed. Barbara Walters would never have treated Obama 1/10th as rudely as she treated McCain.
I have no idea who I am going to vote for - but with this amount of bias and hatred - not to mention the hysterical Whoopi Goldberg screaming of "you're going to make us all slaves again?" - I like Obama less and less, more because of his supporters than because of him.

Posted by: Pittsburgh Sara | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Bush can only take part of the blame for the last few years, seems that America voted in a democratic congress, didn't they?
Remember when Bill Clinton was prez, didn't America have a Republican congress?
Hmmmmmmm.....

Posted by: Optomistic | September 12, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

dee:

Don't you think the ladies on the view came across as "shrill"?

Sincerely,
Sen Harry Reid (D)

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

John McCain and Sarah Palin are proven serial liars and therefor have proven themselves unqualified for the highest offices in the land.
Everyone who has a chance to needs to point this out and make a huge freaking stink about it to properly discredit them before they get elected and discredit our Nation forever.
We can't have 4 more years of lying cheating presidency if we want to repair the damage Bush has done to our international standing.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Obviously I have to start watching The View.

Posted by: jb75771 | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"She asked repeatedly what Palin was supposed to reform about Washington.

"The Republican Party. The Democratic Party. She's going to reform all of Washington," McCain said.

"What specifically?" Walters asked

McCain mentioned Palin selling the state airplane.

"She sold the airplane at a loss," Walters said
"

What on earth does selling an airplane have to do with reforming anything? What did I miss?

McSame is pathetic. All that talk about him being a POW - I think that makes him NOT qualified to be President - how could that have not affected his mind in a negative way? Not possible.

Posted by: WHAT??? | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe McCain actually tried to defend those ads and said they're "not lies", especially after the widespread detailed coverage illustrating that that's exactly what they are. To say they're not lies is, well, it's a blatant lie in itself. Only it's one that's coming right out of McCain's mouth rather than via his campaign.

I'm really disappointed in McCain. At the outset of this contest, I thought, well, whoever wins at leaast it'll be better than Bush. Now I'm not at all sure that that's the case.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 3:40 PM

hun dont be ignorant, not even a politician can buy time on tv to perpetuate lies.

they must uphold a certain level of truth and since obamas camp has not been able to make a valid legal case against teh ads THEY ARE TRUE!!

obama has tried countless times to paint the republicans as liars in his campaign and not one accusation has stuck deep enough to actually affect the campaigns in ANY way.

yet obama plays the race card time after time, and his supporters too, time after time.

at least when mccain plays teh sexist card, independent voters agree that shes being treated unfairly.

in fact according to rasmussen 51% think the media has a bias against palin while only 30% beleive that its not.

thank you 30% democratic base that agrees with obama no matter what he says.

CHECK YOUR FACTS SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN OBAMAS OFFICIAL WEBSITE.

and by the way watch teh video, see what they left out of this "interview"

whoopie goldberg starts a race war asking mccain "do i have to worry about being a slave again?"

^ there it is democrats, for all of you to see what this election is about, why its so heated and why its so slanderous.

obamaniacs cant face the idea of being this close to the whitehouse without getting slave reparations.

well guess what:

THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY IS NOT A RACE RUN FOR SLAVE REPARATIONS IT IS ABOUT LEADERSHIP.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"The View" exposes these shameful McCain lies far better than our leading media have flagged his ignoble assertions with question alerts for us as consumers. But it's doubtful that McCain's persona will now cease its dishonorable conduct, no matter the dark stain he leaves upon his remembrance.

Posted by: Four more years? | September 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"And please bare in mind that McCain has agreed with GW Bush's policies and positions for over 90% of the time over the past 8-years!"

So has Obama

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The guy spent 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp...you think being questioned by 4 women was a problem??? And one is named "Whoopie"!!!!!

Get real.

Posted by: Manny | September 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Miss World:

I'm not sure what John McCain was doing on that yacht with Raffaello Follieri. Why don't you google "Tony Rezko" and "Bill Ayers", and maybe you'll gain some perspective.

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I understand John McCain - he's producing and televising negative, mean-spirite and dishonest ads BECAUSE Obama did not agree with doing town halls? Now, what does that say about his ability to make change or work across party lines or bring people together?

Posted by: MassamachusettsWoman | September 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Jeff - reality check again. McCain has said repeatedly that he would seek a CONSTIUTIONAL AMENDMENT to make ALL abortion, for ANY reason, illegal. He isn't seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, simply our rights to chart our own life course via the constitution.

Posted by: sheryle | September 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, when Palin and McCain are off script...IT REALLY SHOWS. Sorry, Its Bob Barr for me.

Posted by: latinovoter | September 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

At last someone in the media has the balls to stand up and ask McCain some tough questions. Funny that it took a bunch of smart women to nail him on this question. McCain has been lying about Obama's record and character for months and it is time he was challenged on his dishonorable behavior.

In addition McCain has endorsed the lies that Sarah Palin continues to flog. She has pushed for millions of dollars in earmarks even though she claims to be against them. She was in favor of the federal millions for her "bridge to nowhere" despite her lie about rejecting the handout. She has abused her office to bully subordinates and fire state employees. She has stolen money from Alaska taxpayers in the form of unethical requests for per diems for living in her OWN home. Hideously, she shoots wolves from airplanes.

McCain's slapdash decision to choose Palin reveals that he puts crass ambition and dirty GOP politics above the interests of our country. His real motto is "Me first, country second."

Posted by: dee | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I hope if the Democrats win all you imbecilic double-talking contradictory absolutely ridiculous Republicans voting against your own precepts and beliefs because you are bigots and brainwashed, I truly wish they were all the fantasies you think they are so they could re-educate all you turkeys and moroins, or exile you to some island with one bag of potati chips to share between you

Posted by: fep | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

What useless bickering.

Posted by: Tobias | September 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin better not go on Tyra.

Remember how she asked Hillary about Bill's affairs. And you think the view is tough.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

What was John Sidney McCain and his campaign manager doing on a yacht with Ann Hathaway and her then boy friend Raffaello Follieri (the one who plead guilty to conspiracy, money laundering and fraud)?

Posted by: Miss World | September 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

wake up people, this country is run by wall street,They have back both nominees.Eight years ago this was important.This is a lawless land with no accountability.Ceos,Hedge funds,etc. are getting rewards The middle class is getting taken out,People are losing everything an we are bailing out Banks ,car company an every business that has caused this disaster.When Bush was elected did you really think gas wasn't going to go sky high,Saudi own an now china owns us,8 yr all are wealth gone to SA ,China etc

Posted by: pat | September 12, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"I agree with Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd...Obama is not ready to be president!" -- Manny
=========================

That's something that we should keep trumpeting from the lakes of Minnesota (or maybe just Mineapolis) to the hills of Tennessee. ;-)

Posted by: Muad'dib | September 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Let's have a reality check - neither the president nor the vice president can overturn a supreme court decision, and even conservative justices have shied away from that.

Even if it were to happen, overturning Roe V. Wade wouldn't make abortion illegal - it would return state control to the issue.

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The republicans wouldnt have had to pick a shallow VP like Palin if the democrats didnt have such a shallow person running for president. She is just a foil to point out how vapid obama really is.

Lets face it, Obama hasnt done diddly-squat.

Both Palin and Obama are products of the Oprah age where if you hit all the marketing demographics you're qualified to run the country.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

what the hell, the view, he went on the view. is he doing the vagina tour. next stop Oprah. then it's a guest appearances on desperate house wifes, or, wait for it....sex in the city. gotta get them woman votes. how dare him play our woman this way.first he gets the model from van halens hot for teacher video to be his running mate. then the vagina tour. i am apauled. good day..

Posted by: irving goldsack | September 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The choice is clear America. Vote for Obama/Biden if you think the policies of Bush and the Republican Party have taken America off track over the past 8-years.

Vote for McCain/Palin if you think the policies of the Democrats have taken America off track ove the past 8-years.

And please bare in mind that McCain has agreed with GW Bush's policies and positions for over 90% of the time over the past 8-years!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The sale of the Jet: In all fairness when have you ever taken a used vehicle and sold it for more than you paid for it?

It's called "depreciation"

So she sold it for less, big deal.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Dale | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM


this was not me i dont capitalize my name :D genius.

point is obamas tax break is going to tax and break all of us, to claim that taxes stick with JUST THE PEOPLE THEIR MEANT FOR. is a ludicrous ideology that no one but a democrat beleives in.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I would like one question asked of McCain or Palin. And it is not a hypothetical.

They both hope to overturn Roe vs. Wade and make abortion illegal because they believe it is murder. So if a woman takes the morning after pill resulting in the aborting of a fertilized egg should the woman get life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty?

Posted by: Tom | September 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

A gorilla you say. That's interesting, that's a gorilla I'll take. Smart and beautiful. What's more she did not start a medical charity so she could get at the prescription meds, then fraudently use the name of her staff and a corrupt doctor to cover her tracks. Get real!!

Posted by: Vote_with_your_brain | September 12, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

It seems the only way Republicans win arguments is either to accuse someone of being unpatriotic or sexist if someone asks tough questions.

Is it sexist to ask tough questions of a vice presidential candidate? I think it would be sexist not to ask these tough questions.

Posted by: Dan | September 12, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

McBush has been saying that he is working for us, but is "following his own drum." How about following OUR drum John? After all, we are the ones you work for.

Posted by: Mark Hamblett | September 12, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

As much as I dislike the women on The View, they won the debate today, McCain didn't say anything of substance or justify his pig lipstick commercial. So far in this campaign McCain has not offered any answers, just rhetoric.
I'm a 3rd generation republican from a very conservative catholic family. I have always voted with my party but this year i am going to have to vote for obama. Why? Because he at least is trying to offer some answers and solutions.

Posted by: John Q | September 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Those darn liberals catching McCain in lies. How dare they!

Posted by: ohhhthepossibilities | September 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I continue to be amazed that people who elected George Bush feel that they are in a position to criticize ANYBODY !!!!!

Look at what the Republican party has done to our country in the past 8 years!!!

Posted by: janice | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM

less republicans voted for george bush than the last 5 republican nominees for president.

george bush (dont ask me how) got a ton of democrat votes. perhaps they were simply sick of having too liberal of people on the ticket, who knows.

but i am probably the biggest right wing nutjob on this comment page, and i did not even once vote for bush.

when you compare the ECONOMIC policys of bush's administration which is the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE according to poll after poll IT LINES UP WITH OBAMA.

who is the fool?

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe McCain actually tried to defend those ads and said they're "not lies", especially after the widespread detailed coverage illustrating that that's exactly what they are. To say they're not lies is, well, it's a blatant lie in itself. Only it's one that's coming right out of McCain's mouth rather than via his campaign.

I'm really disappointed in McCain. At the outset of this contest, I thought, well, whoever wins at leaast it'll be better than Bush. Now I'm not at all sure that that's the case.

Posted by: Aengil | September 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

The questions on the view were more hard hitting than those asked by journalists.

Republicans, you are forgetting that you are Americans first. So you should be focusing on the issues, intelligence, and leadership capabilities of both tickets to choose the best. Americans can be better people, and the first step is going beyond the pointless bickering.

Posted by: Ace ventura | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Magoo's campaign was"

A noun, a verb and POW.

Now, Magoo's campaign is:

A noun, a verb, POW and a hick chick with a trailer load of baggage.

Posted by: Mistake | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd...Obama is not ready to be president!

Posted by: Manny | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I noticed that Cindy looked like she was high on something. I wonder if she's popping pills again.

Posted by: Average Joe | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse


The poor guy is so old, angry and warped. Poor Palin is so very much retarded. God help us all!!

Posted by: Indep. Mike | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

You cruel people are making fun of John McCain.He is gods givt to america. he was a pow camp and loves america more than anyone.i am 49 and lives in a trailor with my seven childresn. two of them are retarded so that make me more qualifed to be veep than palin. besides, look at those bangs. that girl living in the 70s.

Posted by: Poor Johnny | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

John-
That's one way to put it:
"Let's simply tell the truth. Both candidates have their faults and strengths. If you support choice, social programs, and regulation of big business, vote Obama. If you support life, reduced taxes, and a strong military, vote McCain."

Another way to put it:
If you make more than 250k per year- support McCain, if not support Obama. You poor Republicans out there who are middle class- do you relize your party cares nothing about you and is using you?

Posted by: Dale | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

All agree that John McCain has more experience than Barack Obama. However, some argue that Sarah Palin's experience equals, or even surpasses Obama's. This is false. When we construct a straightforward, unbiased measure of experience we find:

McCain is 5 times more experienced than Obama, and
Obama is 10 times more experienced than Palin.

Obama and Palin are not roughly equal: Obama's experience advantage over Palin is larger than McCain's over Obama.

Here is the reasoning behind these figures. We define experience as the total number of people governed times years in office. For mayors, governors, and presidents, the number of people governed is simply the population of the entity governed. For city council members, representatives, and senators, the number governed is the size of the entity governed divided by the number of fellow legislators.

We will use the following 2007 population estimates for simplicity, rather than the figures for each year someone was in office:

Population of U.S.: 301,139,947
Population of Illinois: 12,852,548
Population of Alaska: 683,478
Population of Wasilla: 9,780

Here is what the experience of each candidate would be in January 2009:

Joe Biden: 36 years U.S. Senate
John McCain: 4 years U.S. Rep.; 22 years U.S. Senate
Barack Obama: 8 years Illinois Senate; 4 years U.S. Senate
Sarah Palin: 4 years Wasilla city council; 6 years Wasilla mayor; 2 years Alaska Governor

There are 100 U.S. Senators, 435 U.S. reps, 57 Illinois senators, and (at a guess, which will not affect the outcome much) 5 Wasilla city council members. Therefore we get the following experience for each candidate:

Joe Biden: 36*(301,139,947/100) = 108,410,381
John McCain: 4*(301,139,947/435) + 22*(301,139,947/100) = 69,019,891
Barack Obama: 8*(12,852,548/57) + 4*(301,139,947/100) = 13,849,464
Sarah Palin: 4*(9,780/5) + 6*9,780 + 2*683,478 = 1,433,460

And thus,

Joe Biden is 1.6 times more experienced than John McCain.
John McCain is 5.0 times more experienced than Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is 9.7 times more experienced than Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Leesburg VA | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked Magoo's bitterness and hatred of the average person didn't come charging out of his crotchety, old, persona.

I hope they asked Cindy how her drug rehab was going and how she felt about having sex with the aged Magoo when she was in her 20's and he was still married.

EEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

Posted by: Magoo equals Bitterness and Hate | September 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dune man. . . the issue here is not what Obama's position is on earmarks, but debunking whether a central tenet of the McCain campaign is a lie. Earmarks are about $18 Billion out of a several trillion dollar budget. McCain/Pallin are campaigning on an anti-earmark platform, so it is hypocritical for her to request earmarks while campaigning against them!

By the way Dune is one of the best books ever. . Muad'dib. . I wonder if Pallin would want to ban it in Wasilla

Posted by: rbt | September 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Earmarks alone are not a bad thing. They are the sign of a leader doing whatever it takes to satisfy his or her constituents.

The problem with McCain and Palin is that they are portraying themselves as above the system when, in fact, they are byproducts of the system.

The issue at hand is not "change" per se. It is which duo is going to bring competence to government, and the era of nepotism, favoritism, cronyism, and incompetence in Washington.

For my money, that's Obama. No lobbyist money, intellectual, well thought out policies (though I disagree on a handful), and a stellar pick in Joe Biden.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

McCain is the new Guiliani -- a noun, verb and "country first."

OR, a noun, a very and "reformer."

Yeah, if you repeat it enough, it sticks.

Nice job Walters!

Posted by: SRM | September 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Bloggers: Calling fellow voters stupid and using all caps is not going to bring anyone to your cause.
And stop with all the Christian hatred. It only makes you a hypocrite.

Posted by: Professor Gas | September 12, 2008 3:31 PM

so gospel of john chapter 2 where jesus is turning over tables and shouting at the pharisees because of thier "stupid" ideology is hypocritical.

go tell that to jesus. and read your bible, you need it something fierce.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Holy smokes... why on earth did McCain even agree to go on The View? It's not like he needs to pander to that demographic, and even if he did, why wouldn't he send Palin? I don't think she's good for much, but I'll admit this really kind of seems like her bag.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Let's simply tell the truth. Both candidates have their faults and strengths. If you support choice, social programs, and regulation of big business, vote Obama. If you support life, reduced taxes, and a strong military, vote McCain.

Posted by: John | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I stopped watching that show years ago when it became apparent that it's nothing more than a liberal lovefest. Anyone here know how their ratings are doing?

Posted by: Kathy | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I continue to be amazed that people who elected George Bush feel that they are in a position to criticize ANYBODY !!!!!

Look at what the Republican party has done to our country in the past 8 years!!!

Posted by: janice | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Joy Behar is a man...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"also where is the blatant disregard for the countless times mccain was interrupted mid sentence? dale,

McCain needs to be interrupted when he keeps repeating the same lies.

He has gone out and hired all the Bush/Rove people who smeared him in the 2000 primary. He has lost any vestige of integrity that he ever had.

His lobbyists and ex White House people are dangling him out in front of this charade like a marrionette puppet.

He has been told if he just keeps lying over and over again that enough ignorant people will vote for him. He is totally disgusting- and this is coming from a Reagan Democrat who also was a veteran of Viet-Nam, although I didn't have the "experience" of having been a resident of the Hanoi Hilton for nearly six years. I think he lost his marbles there.

Too bad, but its not too late for us to wake up and see that he has shown no judment by choosing this totally out of touch person for his running mate.

Not this time

Posted by: Lucas | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

And now back to a real issue-


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

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

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


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about The View. If you were watching the view, that means you don't have a job. Go get one!

Posted by: TheSpew | September 12, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The fact the those vacuous morons don't like him is the best endorsment McCain could possibly recieve.

What a waste of breath.

Posted by: Andrew Boyle | September 12, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I didn't see the show. Odds are, the gals probably laid it on a little thick-but serioiusly-the Palin Veep pick tells you everything you need to know about what's left of McCain's character. I don't doubt she's a nice lady, and a good mom-but that doesn't mean I want her running my country! Why the heck can't our egos stand it that we have someone better than ourselves handling the ship of state? We've seen what happens when we go for for candidates that are "of us". Give me some exceptionalism! Please!

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

obama is exceptional for what reason? because hes considered black? HES LESS THAN 3% AFRICAN

exceptional? you want exceptional? A WOMAN WHO STANDS BY HER PRINCIPLES OF LIFE EVEN WHEN IT MEANS SHE HAS TO TAKE CARE OF A CHILD THAT IS CONSIDERED USELESS BY A REASONABLE MARGIN OF PEOPLE AND A MAN WHO CANNOT RAISE HIS ARMS ABOVE HIS HEAD BECAUSE HE WAS BEATEN FOR 5 YEARS.

boy your standards are either low, high, or stupid i cant figure out which.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

republicans are under gender biased attack! first, that liberal chauvinist charlie gibson attacked palin! now john mccain is being assaulted by the liberal feminists on the view!

can't voters see that republicans can't answer the tough questions? doesn't matter who asks them, their answers are general and uninspired. the gop can't play the gender card then accuse the gender card of being played

Posted by: really? | September 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who relies on The View for political insight is an idiot. It is actually embarrassing that McCain went on the show. These women are all so in the bag for Obama they couldn't help but attack as hard as they could and not quit.

Put Obama on the same show and you could watch.. you are so wonderful, you are so great. You have accomplished so much, you are the change the country needs.. please everyone vote for Barrack...

Give me a break already...

Posted by: TomB | September 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The view women are clearly a bunch of biaaatches. They forgot Obama is married already, to a gorilla.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Bloggers: Calling fellow voters stupid and using all caps is not going to bring anyone to your cause.
And stop with all the Christian hatred. It only makes you a hypocrite.

Posted by: Professor Gas | September 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I love John McCain. He totally knows what place women should have. "Never," says McCain. He's totally old school. He knows that women should look hot and not talk unless with a script!

Posted by: GW | September 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I had planned to vote for McCain - - I truly did think him an honorable man - - but his campaign has proved me wrong. Or perhaps he was an honorable man, but decided that being an honorable man wouldn't get him where he wanted to be.

I'm disillusioned and disappointed by him.

Posted by: pamm | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

That's it I am voting for Nader! I was for McCain, until he proved how stupid he was by going on that Liberal whiny show.
Just plain dumb ! Any smart conservative knows what they're getting into when they go on that disgusting program. That place is definitely enemy territory/

Posted by: SAL | September 12, 2008 3:20 PM


i honestly think the reason he did it more than anything, was to 1) appeal to thier common decency as human beings not just women (historical pow story they were all hushed and awed). 2) to prove that he could hold his temper in a MAJORLY hostile environment.

and frankly i think he did both with flying colors, not to mention the support his wife showed practically shutting everyone up.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I think that both parties should take care in what they decide to put forth as "the truth". It's pretty clear to me that Palin spent earmarks coming in to the state of Alaska, but I'm not sure if she was the one who requested them, or whether she simply inherited earmarks that were already designated to the state. What I do know is that she made the effort to reform earmark spending in the state, and cut the earmark spending considerably. The real questions here are:

1.) Are earmark dollars necessarily a bad thing?

2.) Did Barack Obama make any effort to reform earmark spending in the state of Illinois?

Posted by: Muad'dib | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I didn't see the show. Odds are, the gals probably laid it on a little thick-but serioiusly-the Palin Veep pick tells you everything you need to know about what's left of McCain's character. I don't doubt she's a nice lady, and a good mom-but that doesn't mean I want her running my country! Why the heck can't our egos stand it that we have someone better than ourselves handling the ship of state? We've seen what happens when we go for for candidates that are "of us". Give me some exceptionalism! Please!

Posted by: Biff | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

An uber-wealthy career politician in his senior years gets beat up by a bunch of women on TV and I miss it.

Durn!

The Tramp

Posted by: PhantomTramp | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Didn't see the interview, so I don't know the tone of what McCain said, but if he was serious and cut Cindy off with his never, or if it even appears that he didn't want her to answer, that is also a damning insight into his view of women and their place at least in marraige. i will let others comment who saw the interview who can speak more to the issue if this is a concern

Posted by: rbt | September 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

first off let me point out i dont support any candidate running for the oval office.,
but wasnt it hillary who doubted obamas lack of experience with the 3:00am call ad
too old too young is this really the best america has to offer? or maybe the best candidate is actualy to smart to fool arround with the garbage involved in running for president it really is sad
that america cant realy fix the most simple political problems it has.

Posted by: rob | September 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Dale-
Thanks for proving my point- retard.

"the fiscal responsibility of bush was thrown assunder, he has a spending record rivaled only by democrats and NO REPUBLICAN IN HISTORY."

you might want to get your facts straight- go back and check the spending records of your beloved Reagan and the first Bush.

Posted by: Bob- | September 12, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

and bob, the reason i say that you voted for bush, is even if you voted otherwise, the democratic party put people in position to fight bush twice that were so far left of center they couldnt win an election against ANY republican candidate (except maybe strom thurmon) because democrats are constantly showing how arrogant and cocky they are.

again, learn the facts, economic principles that lead to recession are democrat enduced in nature, bill clinton was the one who advocated the real estate market and teh concept of mortgage equity.

on top of that whoopie goldberg has now stated clearly that the only reason for voting for barack obama is the concept of slavery reparations.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/12/whoopi-to-mccain-do-you-want-me-to-be-a-slave-again/

you cannot win an election with only 30% of the country on your side obama, bradley factor in affect, mccain won hands down because of that interview.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't McCain's not knowing that Palin had requested over $200 Million in ear marks including money for the mating habits of Halibut and dolphins prove beyond a shadow of a douobt that she wasn't vetted at all! McCain's policy of fiscal reform is the centerpiece of his election. His lack of knowledge about her ear mark largesse is a damning statement of his vetting process. . which we all know is the defining moment in the nominee's campaign and tells us what we need to know about his decision making process!

Posted by: rbt | September 12, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse


It's so easy to run against liberals.. just let them talk.

Posted by: reason | September 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

That's it I am voting for Nader! I was for McCain, until he proved how stupid he was by going on that Liberal whiny show.
Just plain dumb ! Any smart conservative knows what they're getting into when they go on that disgusting program. That place is definitely enemy territory/

Posted by: SAL | September 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I know those View ladies. Many of them are Obama girls. Big flatters.
Nothing are worse than "Pastor Gate", "William Ayers Gate", and of course, "Tony Rezko Gate"!
Yes, a community organizer did not get any grill from the media.
They scared to ask him any real questions.
They licked his toes.

Posted by: DC Resident | September 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

freakin hillarious, leave it to the view to do all the hard questioning?

Posted by: What ugetWithaRoomfulOfGirls | September 12, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Dale's on it.

But Senators and Representatives slide in the earmarks, anyone downstream getting the earmarks doesn't get a say. Including departments in the Federal Government.

All of a sudden a large sack of money lands at their doorstep with instructions of what to use it for. There may be better uses for it, but it's ticketed for something potentially useless.

Posted by: Truth | September 12, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Wow! I watched this show in its entirety and I am appalled at how you chose to review it. Way to leave out anything that shows McCain in a favorable light, or the attacks he faced by the ladies of the view! Liberal bias at its best.

Posted by: Nikki | September 12, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

bob,

i didnt vote for bush, you did, the fiscal responsibility of bush was thrown assunder, he has a spending record rivaled only by democrats and NO REPUBLICAN IN HISTORY.

you are teh scary one sir, face teh reality that bush is a hem and haw about every issue JUST LIKE OBAMA, and has a fiscal record JUST LIKE OBAMA, and planned a similar tax plan JUST LIKE OBAMA.

you sit around and hear teh campaign that mccain voted with bush 95% of the time when bush DIDNT EVEN HAVE A VOTE.

no, im not better off after 8 years of bush, and because i dont want another guy who appears nice, who talks about change but never does it, who follows the fiscal policys of a democrat, and proposes tax cuts that will cripple the last working economical factor in our country. im NOT GONNA VOTE FOR OBAMA EITHER.

duh?

plz, get your facts somewhere that isnt obamas main website.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Every woman who wants to keep her rights, safety, and equality should read the following:

Women: *Please* email this to 5 women that you know:

From:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/65qxee

Sunday, September 07, 2008

10 Ways in Which, For Women, Sarah Palin Is *Exactly* Like George W. Bush

1) Like Bush, she is completely against a woman's right to choose (in fact, she exceeds Bush in that she is against a woman's right to choose even in cases of rape or incest;

2) Like Bush, she opposes stem cell research to prevent fatal diseases in men, women and children;

3) Like Bush, supports the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in public schools;

4) Like Bush, does not believe that Global Warming is man made;

5) Like Bush, has supported abstinence-only sex education methods that have proven ineffective;

6) Like Bush, has virtually no foreign policy experience prior to running for national office--(in Palin's case, despite a 72-year old, chronically ill running mate)

7) Like Bush, has engaged in conduct that has resulted in current government investigation of her actions;

8) Like Bush, has made statements which indicate lack of knowledge of basic elements of the office they are running for (Palin, July 2008: "What exactly does the Vice President do everyday?");

9) Like Bush, has been sequestered to prevent her being asked questions that she has not yet been prepared to answer;

10) Like Bush, talks like a reformer--yet in her actions (i.e., relying on lobbying, supporting the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it) acts in the most typical, all-too-familiar fashion.

BONUS: Like Bush, secretive--and withholds govt. emails!

DOUBLE BONUS! In a view that even Bush has discarded, Palin still links Iraq to 9-11.

Still willing to put her a heartbeat from the Presidency with a 72 year old candidate?

H/T: On The Issues

Cite:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/65qxee

Posted by: Marie Stewart | September 12, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

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

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


LET'S GET READY TO RUUUMMMBBBLLLE...!


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

Posted by: DrainYou | September 12, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Why oh why did I have to go to work and miss this one! The reason why this is so rich is b/c the McCain camp is looking for easy media avenues that will give them access to large female audience so they can hawk their princess as a real candidate.

Apparently the women aren't a soft and squishy as they thought. Did he forget that Barbara Walters was on that show? I'm glad that they did this, b/c no one else in the media has big enough set of cojones to challenge the McCain camp. If Sarah Palin were legit, she would put herself out there and show us what she is made of.

I bet that if somehow this scam flies and they are elected into office, Palin will be pregnant within the first couple of months and only brought out for photo ops.

Posted by: Ginny7 | September 12, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

dale-
retarded voters like yourself are what's scary. please answer this question- are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?

Posted by: Bob | September 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

also where is the blatant disregard for the countless times mccain was interrupted mid sentence?

its awesome how not only the stations edit it out over here on the west coast, but you the press edit it to fit your personality for the day.

NO GOVERNOR CAN EVER IN ANY WAY TAKE EARMARKS

a governor takes the funding provided them by senators SENATORS procure earmarks for funding because its easier than simply passing a bill for funding.

read the full transcript, or watch teh video, while whoopie completely trashes both campaigns and turns it into an all out race war.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

boy you guys are really grasping, 200mil in funding requests, does that demand earmarks? NO it demands funding.

where is whoopies outburst about "do you want us to be slaves again".

that completely and utterly cripples obamas entire campaign.

even democrats are now hard pressed to deny this election has reached its lowest point....a race war.

now the question is, vote for a candidate for president, or vote for a reparation for slavery.

if the bradley affect wasn't already completely in affect it sure is now. when obama looses the race, look back on this moment and know that this is where he definitely lost it.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

What Obama Needs to Do...

1. Lie with impunity. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Lies are rewarded by the press, the corrections…not so much. So…John McCain wants to give illegal immigrants full immunity and make them all citizens (citing immigration policy). Sarah Palin want to turn America into a theocracy (citing her nutty church and beliefs). McCain/Palin want to close Social Security and Medicaid / Medicare (inference from statements). Sarah Palin sought to actively rebel against the United States (citing AIP). Etc.

2. Tell nasty truths. McCain shoved a woman in wheelchair. Collaborated with the North Vietnamese. Told tasteless joke about a political opponent’s child (Chelsea Clinton). Called his own wife the C-word! Run commercials showing footage of McCain saying the war in Iraq would be easy, contrasted with footage of him saying he never said it. This is leadership? The list for these two is endless.

3. All hands on deck. Where are the surrogates? I don’t hear Gore, Dean, the Clintons, various female governors and senators, Dodd, Richardson, etc., making news. Where is Hillary Clinton with this statement: “Frankly, I am shocked that Sarah Palin hasn’t given a press conference. The McCain/Palin ticket seems to be hiding behind gender to avoid answer legit questions about her qualifications to be president. This is not what my campaign was about.” These people should be out there every day, on message. If you have an off message thought, keep it to yourself.

4. Attack all the time. One after the other, without pause. Don’t let anyone catch their breath before moving on to the next fake outrage. One web video/commercial per day.

5. Stand up behind your attacks. Never apologize.

6. Respond vociferously. But only to suggest that the GOP is insulting voters or trying to shaft the little guy. Otherwise, completely ignore their attacks.

7. Get dirty. Through “unaffiliated” surrogates send out push polls, send out flyers, viral emails, etc., asking if people have heard about the Sarah Palin sex tape, John McCain’s affair with an aide, Sarah Palin’s satan worship, and so on.

8. Appeal to the heart, not the head. Use fear. Your social security will be gone, we’ll be at war in Iran and Pakistan and, possibly, Russia, and we’ll have a great depression on top of it all…if you elect McCain/Palin.

9. Get the VP to attack like a mad dog. Stop being friends with John McCain and talking about Hillary Clinton. Biden is making news for all the wrong reasons. Give him this memo and a bunch of talking points and just repeat them over and over again, which leads me to…

10. Repeat. Over and over again. Repetition sets the meme and once an idea takes hold it is difficult to dislodge. That’s why you must attack first and keep repeating. Sarah Palin won’t face the press. She’s unqualified. McCain is a warmonger. The GOP knows nothing about the economy. And all the rest listed above. Over and over again.

http://nahnopenotquite.com/

Posted by: ES | September 12, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Good job. This empty man and his child veep pick, the one who knows where Russia is because she can see sit from Alaska, sort of, need to be brought to task for lies and not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. And it ain't in either the new or old testament, Sarah.

Posted by: Richard McDonough | September 12, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company