0
   

McCain lies

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 07:37 am
@FreeDuck,
Yep, here it is.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 07:40 am
@FreeDuck,
That's a cool sentence. Smile

Thanks for the link...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:41 pm
Washington Post:

McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 11:24 am
Josh Marshall wrote:
It's become pathological. John McCain just claimed on TV that Sarah Palin has never requested an earmark for her state -- when actually her state gets more earmarks than any other state in the country. And this year she asked for $197 million worth of them herself.

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

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

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


cites in original

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/216231.php
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 04:08 pm
@sozobe,
Have you guys seen the stuff about majorly inflated crowd estimates? It's not a huge deal, just kind of a head-shaker:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 08:04 pm
The NYT sums things up nicely today, though unfortunately under a weasely headline, listing much of the whole series of recent McCain campaign lies:

Quote:
McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions

[..] Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” [..]

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.

A McCain advertisement called “Fact Check” was itself found to be “less than honest” by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group. The group complained that the McCain campaign had cited its work debunking various Internet rumors about Ms. Palin and implied in the advertisement that the rumors had originated with Mr. Obama.

In an interview Friday on the NY1 cable news channel, a McCain supporter, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, called “ridiculous” the implication that Mr. Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment was a reference to Ms. Palin, whom he also defended as coming under unfair attack. [..]

Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama. [..]

Mr. Sipple, the Republican strategist, voiced concern that Mr. McCain’s approach could backfire. “Any campaign that is taking liberty with the truth and does it in a serial manner will end up paying for it in the end,” he said. “But it’s very unbecoming to a political figure like John McCain whose flag was planted long ago in ground that was about ‘straight talk’ and integrity.”

The campaign has also been selective in its portrayal of Mr. McCain’s running mate, Ms. Palin. [..] Ms. Palin has often told audiences about pulling the plug on the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, an expensive federal project to build a bridge to a sparsely populated Alaskan island that became a symbol of wasteful federal spending. “I told Congress, ‘Thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska,” she said this week in Virginia.

But her position was more like “please” before it became “no thanks.” Ms. Palin supported the bridge project while running for governor, and abandoned it after it became a national scandal and Congress said the state could keep the money for other projects. As a mayor and governor, she hired lobbyists to request millions in federal spending for Alaska. [..]

At a campaign stop this week in Missouri, Mr. McCain said that Mr. Obama’s plan would “force small businesses to cut jobs and reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”

Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that Mr. Obama’s plan would not force families into a government-run system. “I would say this is an inaccurate and false characterization of the Obama plan,” he said. “I don’t use those words lightly.”
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 08:18 pm
@nimh,
Over at the Cogitamus blog, though, they're still exasperated with the reluctance of the NYT and other pillars of the mainstream media to just call a spade a spade. Amen to this - it's almost hilarious, the succession of synonyms:

Quote:
The New York Times: All the Euphemisms That Are Fit to Print?

[..] Paul Krugman's excellent editorial aside, why do the New York Times writers say barbs and distortions when they mean LIES? Anyone?

Way to work that dog-eared copy of Roget's, gentlemen (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.


And on it goes. The word "lies" doesn't actually appear until you're near the bottom of the article's first page, and even then, it was quoting someone else--in this case, Joy Behar, host of The View, when she addressed Senator McCain directly [..]:

Quote:
“We know that those two ads are untrue,” Ms. Behar said. “They are lies. And yet you, at the end of it, say, ‘I approve these messages.’ Do you really approve them?”

“Actually they are not lies,” Mr. McCain said crisply, “and have you seen some of the ads that are running against me?”


Well, of course they're not lies, Joy, you silly goose: they're barbs or attacks or distortions, or--if you're really feeling ballsy--misrepresentations, just like the nice newspaper folk say. Surely you didn't expect McCain to call a lie a lie? And indeed, why should he, when hardly a soul in the mainstream press dares to utter or type the word.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 08:21 pm
Talking of synonyms, the WaPo lashes out at the McCain campaign's "distortions":

Quote:
McCain Wraps Distortions Around One Truth

Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A08

THE AD

He was the world's biggest celebrity, but his star's fading. So they lashed out at Sarah Palin. Dismissed her as "good-looking." That backfired, so they said she was doing "what she was told." Then desperately called Sarah Palin a liar. How disrespectful. And how Governor Sarah Palin proves them wrong, every day.

ANALYSIS

This John McCain commercial, which contains two significant distortions, is part of a larger effort to rule criticism of his running mate out of bounds and to paint her as the victim of unfair attacks from both Democrats and the media.

The "they" is never specified here, but the notion that Barack Obama's campaign "dismissed" Sarah Palin based on her looks twists what was clearly a self-deprecating joke by his running mate, Joseph R. Biden Jr. The senator from Delaware laughed as he compared himself to the Alaska governor: "Well, there's obvious differences. She's good-looking."

The "doing what she was told" line is an exaggerated version of a comment by Obama strategist David Axelrod. "She tried to attack Obama by saying he had no significant legislative accomplishments -- maybe that's what she was told," he said. Axelrod did not say that Palin was entirely programmed by the McCain campaign.

The spot is accurate in saying the Obama campaign called Palin a liar. An Obama ad challenged her for taking credit for stopping Alaska's so-called Bridge to Nowhere, which she had originally supported, saying: "Politicians lying about their records?" [..]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 08:47 pm
Hilzoy calls "yet another lie from the McCain campaign":

Quote:
Sigh ...

First, yet another lie from the McCain campaign:

Quote:
"The campaign Friday launched a 30-second Spanish-language television ad charging that Democrat Barack Obama and his Senate colleagues torpedoed meaningful changes in immigration laws.

"The press reports that their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail," the ad charges. "The result: No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side? Obama and his congressional allies ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead."

Why that's wrong: Media accounts cited two votes as effectively killing immigration reform last year - and Obama was on the same side as McCain in both."


McClatchy helpfully provides links to both votes: 1, 2. Just for the heck of it, I went looking for analyses of the bill's failure at the time. They don't mention [that's three links - nimh] any amendments by Obama. They do, however, say things like this:

Quote:
"It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails."

And this:

Quote:
"There's plenty of blame to go around. Blame George W. Bush, a president whose self-inflicted wounds have left him too politically incapacitated to deliver his own party. Blame Republicans like Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, senators more focused on generating sound bites and 30-second attack ads than on solving the nation's immigration problems. And blame Democratic senators such as James Webb of Virginia, who ducked the hard vote while hiding behind a phony compromise proposal that had no chance. Although it was Republican senators who bear primary responsibility for killing off immigration reform, all of them conspired to reinforce and justify the public's disdain for politics as usual."


But, oddly enough, Senator Obama's name does not come up.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 08:58 pm
It's hard to keep track of how many different McCain ads have been condemned for spreading lies and distortions, but here's another one that I dont think has been mentioned in this thread yet -- and it gets three "Pinocchios" from the Washington Post. It's "a fundamentally dishonest ad", which "repeats an unsubstantiated claim by a conservative commentator as if it is proven fact. The overall result is an untruthful, misleading ad."

Quote:
AD WATCH: Spreading dirt on Palin--and Obama

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK4oWay1VbE[/youtube]

Quote:
"The attacks on Governor Palin have been called 'completely false, misleading.' And, they've just begun. The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama 'air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers' into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin. As Obama drops in the polls, he will try to destroy her."
--McCain "Fact Check" Ad, September 10, 2008.

A McCain ad earlier this week twisted newpaper quotes to ridicule Barack Obama's record on education reform. The McCainites are using a similar technique to claim that Obama has "air-dropped a mini-army" of lawyers and opposition researchers into Alaska in an attempt to "destroy" the reputation of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

The Facts

Titled "Fact Check," the latest McCain ad uses unsubtle imagery to deliver a very unsubtle message. A photograph of Obama flashes across the screen as a woman's voice denounces recent attacks on the Alaska Governor as "completely false." A light airplane is shown flying across a mountainous wilderness. (Opposition researchers being airdropped?) A pack of wolves moves through the pristine forest (Alaska?) in pursuit of its prey. (Sarah Palin?)

There are a number of serious problems with the ad.

First, while it is clear that the Democrats have been conducting what is politely known as "opposition research" on Palin, the claim that "a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers" has been "air-lifted" into the state rests on very flimsy sourcing. The Wall Street Journal opinion piece in question was written by a conservative commentator named John Fund and appeared on September 9. It has been flatly denied by both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign. Fund has not produced any evidence to support his claim beyond his unnamed "sources."

"We have zero people who have gone up to Alaska to research Sarah Palin," said DNC research director Mike Gehrke. He adds that the DNC has used "local volunteers" to research Palin's background as well as "help from people who have run against her in the past." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says that the Obama campaign has not sent anybody to Alaska to research Palin's background, and refuses to comment on the activities of campaign staffers and volunteers already in the state.

If the McCain campaign, or John Fund, has evidence that Gehrke and Vietor are lying, they should produce it. Anonymous sources lack credibility.

Contacted yesterday, Fund said he still believes his story to be true, but did not provide supporting evidence. He complained that the McCain campaign had twisted his story by saying that "Obama" had sent the "mini-army" of lawyers and opposition researchers into Alaska, when he used the term "Democrats." He also pointed out that he did not use the term "dig dirt" against Sarah Palin. Instead, he used the more neutral expression "dig into her record and background."

The McCain campaign also misquoted the website, Factcheck.org, in suggesting that Obama had been responsible for the "false attacks" on Palin. Factcheck.org had earlier debunked a number of false and misleading claims about Palin that appeared in chain e-mails and Internet postings, but found "no evidence" that Obama was behind the "wild accusations." The non-partisan fact-checking organization says that the McCain-Palin campaign "altered our message in a fashion that we considered less than honest."

The Pinocchio Test

For the second time in less than a week, the McCain campaign has strung together a series of media quotes to create a fundamentally dishonest ad. The ad creates the erroneous impression that Obama was behind the false attacks on Palin. It repeats an unsubstantiated claim by a conservative commentator as if it is proven fact. The overall result is an untruthful, misleading ad.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gifhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gifhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gif
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 09:02 pm
@nimh,
Anyone know why those Youtube tags don't work? I followed the instructions...
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 09:05 pm
@nimh,
They only work in the root post element for now (so, for example, they won't work in quotes). That may change later, but it's initially an easy way to make tag soup not break stuff (what if someone tries to nest a link in a quote in a size....).

I'll add that to the blog post.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 09:18 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Oh, OK, thanks!

I was wondering, maybe is it possible to add a comments section to the blog? Like, a question like this I thought was not worth contacting the Helpdesk over - they've got enough more pressing tasks, I imagine, without checking whether someone's used a certain tag correctly or not. But I also dont want you to feel like I'm just dropping a question like this inside a random thread, where you'll only come across it by chance. I mean, I did that because it was no big deal whether someone answered or not, and maybe someone posting here might just happen to know it. But given the in-between option of dropping a comment to the blog post in question I woulda done that, of course.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 09:24 pm
The news media do seem to have tentatively begun calling out the McCain campaign on its lies. Here are two encouraging examples - have you seen any others, beyond the ones posted already, in the mainstream media?

Quote:
In truth-bending climate, McCain claims stand out

Though once a target of such smears, he is loath to retract allegations, even when given the facts.

Fri, Sep. 12, 2008
By Charles Babington
Associated Press


Quote:
New election low: distorting the fact-checking

News outlets and independent truth squads seem to agree that the McCain camp's distortions on Barack Obama have gone too far.

September 12, 2008
By James Rainey, ON THE MEDIA
LA Times
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 09:35 pm
@nimh,
The blog comments might eventually be turned on, but right now it represents more work we aren't ready to do yet (e.g. get the blog spam filters up and moderate the comments) and we aren't sure we want to use the blog for that yet.

We'll eventually get around to writing up pretty comprehensive documentation but it probably won't be on the blog.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 09:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
OK, gotcha.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 08:48 am
@nimh,
I'm seeing more and more.

There was the big NYT article yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13mccain.html

Boston Globe exposed whether Palin actually visited Iraq:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/

and the Bloomberg article about how the McCain campaign has been inflating crowd estimates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics

Then just read this, (though First Read has been pretty good about this stuff for a while):

Quote:
Palin did not deviate much from the speech she had given the last two weeks on the road with McCain. She reiterated a line that she put the governor’s luxury jet on eBay. While accurate, the jet wasn’t sold on eBay.

Nevada Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki said on stage that 10,000 people were in the crowd, but parks officials said the pavilion held only 3,500 people.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1394679.aspx

Generally speaking, this kind of coverage usually ends with "10,000 people were in the crowd," so I was happy to see the bolded part, minor as it may be. A little investigative work, a little fact-checking, a little less regurgitation.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 08:55 am
@sozobe,
Sorry, I needed to re-read before posting -- you mention NYT already and I'd mentioned Bloomberg already. The Boston Globe one seems to be new to this thread though I think.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 07:55 pm
Wow, look at this - it's a Fox News anchor repeatedly, insistently calling McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds out on McCain's lying about Obama and taxes. It's a sight to behold. Someone send that woman some flowers.



Megyn Kelly is her name.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 07:02 am
A nice Wiki for tracking McCain: http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies.
 

Related Topics

McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain lies
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.21 seconds on 08/20/2019 at 04:23:33