FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If you will read what I said, you wil see that I agreed that her political rhetoric and her actual motive for rejecting the bridge doesn't wash and she wasn't telling the whole story in her rhetoric. And yes, this did (and was certainly calculated) to give a somewhat different impression than what actually happened. Which led me to my comment "Imagine a politician doing that!" As if McCain, Biden, and Obama don't all do that? A lot?

But neither was she flat out lying.

Which culminated in my conclusion that on the Truth/False meter, the statement is partly, perhaps mostly, true.

Lol. But you do admit that she didn't turn down the money, right? That she wasn't interested in saving anyone money? She only became against the bridge after it was clear the national Republican party was against it.

The CNN article you linked doesn't show that she 'angered' the Congressional delegation, both of which are on their way out for corruption.

So, her political reason for turning down the bridge isn't the same as what she has portrayed it as, and she kept the money to spend on other stuff, and she angered two corrupt politicians who were squarely against the national party on this issue - and her statement is 'mostly true?' Laughing

Which part of it was true?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No, she didn't turn down the money which would have been allocated to Alaska in any case. She did give up the money that went for New Orleans relief. She did anger the Congressional delegation as is clearly shown in the CNN article I posted. She did flipflop on the bridge after she became Governor and assessed the fiscal implications of the bridge from that vantage point and then decided that the bridge was not a good investment of the people's money. She actually gets kudos for that.

Again, as I have already said twice now, I won't give her kudos for omitting extenuating circumstances when whe uses the bridge for political advantage, but neither will I condemn her for that more than I condemn that kind of thing in any politician and Obama, Biden, and McCain as well as most politicians do that kind of thing a lot. I wish they wouldn't, but they do.

Again you are free to smear and slime her as much as you wish, Cyclop, but it remains your opinion alone unless you have a credible source that disputes other sources posted.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If you will read what I said, you wil see that I agreed that her political rhetoric and her actual motive for rejecting the bridge doesn't wash and she wasn't telling the whole story in her rhetoric. And yes, this did (and was certainly calculated) to give a somewhat different impression than what actually happened. Which led me to my comment "Imagine a politician doing that!" As if McCain, Biden, and Obama don't all do that? A lot?

But the argument for her is that she's different, right?

Quote:

But neither was she flat out lying.

Which culminated in my conclusion that on the Truth/False meter, the statement is partly, perhaps mostly, true.

I guess I am having trouble with the whole "doesn't wash" = "partly, perhaps mostly, true" equation. But I'm not really interested in beating a dead horse.

0 Replies

Eight weeks to go today and nationally, within margin of error, it is all tied up.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Obama and the Democrats still hold an edge in balance of power among the states, but it is shrinking. Rasmussen also reports increase in the Republican population following the GOP Convention.

Palin has definitely invigorated the Republican and conservative base and has made the difference. It remains to be seen if the malicious hate-bashing of her will have an effect in the home stretch. There are members here on A2K for instance who are posting thread after thread after thread sliming her and McCain with ANYTHING they can dig out of the most hateful blogs out there and are using thread titles full of innuendo. And yes, I have recoiled at some of the Obama thread titles too. And that merges into other blogs and the media keeping certain images at the forefront.

I think that kind of gutter politics is indefensible and I hope decent people reject it and I hope America still has more of a sense of decency than not. If we want the best people to run for high office, I think they at the very least deserve a fair and honest appraisal of their record.

But as I read this morning, this election will be determined not by issues or anything of any kind of substance, but will be based on image.

So what do you think. If they slime our candidates with all kinds of dishonest garbage, is it cricket to slime theirs with all kinds of garbage? If we believe that our candidate is the best choice for America, is it okay to do whatever it takes to win? One of our members earlier on this thread thought so.

What does everybody else think?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Again you are free to smear and slime her as much as you wish, Cyclop, but it remains your opinion alone unless you have a credible source that disputes other sources posted.

Is this really smear and slime, though? I thought this kind of stuff is what we should be discussing.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Okay Fox, here's the whole text of the CNN link you quoted:

Quote:

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Some called it a bridge to the future. Others called it the bridge to nowhere.
art.alaska.ap.jpg

The canceled bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on the left, with Gravina Island, on the right.

On Friday, Alaska decided the bridge really was going nowhere, officially abandoning the project in Ketchikan that became a national symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.

While the move closes a chapter that has brought the state reams of ridicule, it also leaves open wounds in a community that fought for decades to get federal help.

"We went through political hot water -- tons of it -- and not just nationally but internationally," Ketchikan-Gateway Borough Mayor Joe Williams said. "We have nothing to show for it."

The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island.

Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.

"We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."

Palin directed state transportation officials to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport. She said the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system.

Ketchikan is Alaska's entry port for northbound cruise ships that bring more than 1 million visitors yearly. Every flight into Gravina Island requires a 15-minute ferry ride to reach the more densely populated Revillagigedo Island.

The town -- seven blocks wide and eight miles long -- has little room to grow. Local officials have said access to Gravina Island, population 50, is needed for the town and its economy to grow.

They called the state's decision premature, saying it came without warning.

"For somebody who touts process and transparency in getting projects done, I'm disappointed and taken aback," said state Rep. Kyle Johansen, R-Ketchikan. "We worked 30 years to get funding for this priority project."

U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands.

Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.

Stevens spokesman Aaron Saunders said Friday the senator was interested in how the state ultimately used the money. A spokeswoman for Young said the congressman would have no comment.

Just last month, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.

"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.

"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."

On Friday, Leo von Scheben, commissioner of the state Department of Transportation, said the bridge money could be used to build roads in Alaska.

"There is no question we desperately need to construct new roads in this state, including in southeast Alaska, where skyrocketing costs for the Alaska Marine Highway System present an impediment to the state's budget and the region's economy," von Scheben said in a statement.

The governor urged Alaskans not to dwell on the bridge.

"Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here," Palin said. "But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Where in there does it say that she 'angered' the Congressional delegation? I read the whole thing and didn't see that even implied, let alone 'clearly shown.' Can you point out which part says that? Unless you are talking about the quote from the State Congressman. Hahah. Hardly a problem there.

You don't spend much time looking into the fact that she fought for the earmarks for the bridge. She championed the project. She several times spoke in support of it. She spoke glowingly of how the 'federal delegation,' IE Young and Stevens, were going to get the money for the project. Then the project became unpopular. Then the national Republicans turned against it. They cut off the money for the project. Once it became clear that AK itself was going to have to pony up the 400 million or so, she dropped it. Not because it was fiscally irresponsible to build the bridge; but because she wanted the AMERICAN taxpayer to pay for it, not the AK ones. She didn't want it to come out of her budget.

There was nothing noble involved here, no 'lesson learned,' nothing. Just political expidiency. And that's not all that bad; as you've said above, that's common for politicians. But that's not how she and McCain presented it! They pushed it as some sort of winning issue, as if she personally turned down the bridge and stood up to wasteful spending! It was a complete and total lie, and you know it. They tried to position something she really had nothing to do with as evidence of her 'maverick' status. And it has blown up in their faces. Every news organization is carrying stories now of how she has been deceitful on the issue, and I guarantee that it doesn't help her or McCain to have been caught in this lie.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If you can't see it in that article, Cyclop, I don't know what I could possible say to inform you. There is more in the other article I posted too.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You could point out which actual words led you to the conclusion you said was obviously there. Please, I would like you to do so. You specifically said it was 'clearly shown.'

I think that the failure to highlight the fact that Palin pushed FOR the bridge and ran ON building the bridge really knocks a hole in your case, Fox. She was totally for it, before she realized she wasn't going to get it, and then decided to be against it. Some reformer.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Again you are free to smear and slime her as much as you wish, Cyclop, but it remains your opinion alone unless you have a credible source that disputes other sources posted.

Is this really smear and slime, though? I thought this kind of stuff is what we should be discussing.

It is smearing and sliming to question her motives when there is nothing to determine that her motives were anything other than her statements or what has been reported re the bridge. We both agree that she is creating a false impression when she says she turned the bridge down without explaining why, but I can forgive her that as I have to forgive all politicians as they all seem to do it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I think that kind of gutter politics is indefensible and I hope decent people reject it and I hope America still has more of a sense of decency than not. If we want the best people to run for high office, I think they at the very least deserve a fair and honest appraisal of their record.

I certainly reject gutter politics, but I have to say I haven't seen much of it this year. I think both campaigns have been pretty good about not using character assassination to slime the other. I have not seen any Willie Horton ads, for instance. Nor have I seen McCain accused of having fathered biracial baby out of wedlock. I have seen some slime, but not coming directly from either of these campaigns. Remember the "terrorist fist jab"?

Quote:

But as I read this morning, this election will be determined not by issues or anything of any kind of substance, but will be based on image.

So says McCain campaign manager:

Rick Davis wrote:

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Quote:

So what do you think. If they slime our candidates with all kinds of dishonest garbage, is it cricket to slime theirs with all kinds of garbage? If we believe that our candidate is the best choice for America, is it okay to do whatever it takes to win? One of our members earlier on this thread thought so.

I think that there has been very little actual slime but that the race is being hotly contested. I don't see why it would be anything else given what is at stake. When was the last time we elected a president who was not prepared to fight for it?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It is smearing and sliming to question her motives when there is nothing to determine that her motives were anything other than her statements or what has been reported re the bridge.

Eh. Haven't you already conceded the point that her motives were not what she portrayed them to be? So it seems like questioning them was maybe a good idea. Or are you talking about some other motives?

Quote:

We both agree that she is creating a false impression when she says she turned the bridge down without explaining why, but I can forgive her that as I have to forgive all politicians as they all seem to do it.

Fine. You can forgive her for it. But it's not slime to point out that she didn't tell the whole truth.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It is smearing and sliming to question her motives when there is nothing to determine that her motives were anything other than her statements or what has been reported re the bridge.

Eh. Haven't you already conceded the point that her motives were not what she portrayed them to be? So it seems like questioning them was maybe a good idea. Or are you talking about some other motives?

Quote:
We both agree that she is creating a false impression when she says she turned the bridge down without explaining why, but I can forgive her that as I have to forgive all politicians as they all seem to do it.

Fine. You can forgive her for it. But it's not slime to point out that she didn't tell the whole truth.

No, I have NOT conceded that her motives were not what she portrayed them to be. I conceded that she intentionally gave an incomplete impression of the facts in her rhetoric without lying about it. That is a different thing.

I have no problem with questioning motives when they are clearly misrepresented. That is not sliming.

I have no problem in analyzing relationships or involvement or words spoken or actions taken. That is not sliming.

I have a problem with manufacturing/making up motives when there is no basis for them and stating such made up motives as fact. I have a problem with trying to making a bigger deal out of something than it actually is. I have a problem with making up stuff about people or misquoting them or misrepresenting them in malicious ways. THAT is sliming.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, I have NOT conceded that her motives were not what she portrayed them to be.

Foxfyre wrote:

So while she is technically correct that she turned it down, she may be stretching it as to her motives for doing so. (Imagine a politician doing that!)

I'm not trying to be mean. I am just honestly at a loss as to what words mean to you.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, if the bridge is the biggest issue, it aint goin nowhere. I have long suspected the label "bridge to nowhere" was a label attached out of ignorance. Projects like this have a history, and they have reasons. So she was for it, but eventually said, to heck with it, we'll do it ourselves, if I read all of this correctly. So it sounds like she hasn't misrepresented what she did, she just left out alot of the details that led up to what she did. Not unusual for things in a speech. Again, if thats the best issue you have on Palin, good luck, as I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, You miss the whole point; it's about pork.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops, if the bridge is the biggest issue, it aint goin nowhere. I have long suspected the label "bridge to nowhere" was a label attached out of ignorance. Projects like this have a history, and they have reasons. So she was for it, but eventually said, to heck with it, we'll do it ourselves, if I read all of this correctly. So it sounds like she hasn't misrepresented what she did, she just left out alot of the details that led up to what she did. Not unusual for things in a speech. Again, if thats the best issue you have on Palin, good luck, as I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans.

Actually you aren't reading this correctly at all. She didn't say 'heck with it, we'll do it ourselves' at all. She was all for the American taxpayer to spend the money to build it. But when it became clear that wasn't going to happen, she didn't want to spend AK taxpayer money on it, for it would be coming out of her budget. So she decided she was against it. Not because it was a bad idea, not because she thought it was a waste of money - but because she wanted the Feds to pay for it and not her administration. In fact, she canceled it rather then pay for it herself.

This is the exact opposite of the way that she has portrayed it, and it's why every news org., including the WSJ and other Conservative news orgs, are calling her out on her lie. She didn't say 'to heck with it.' The national Republican party said 'you're not getting the money.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

So she was for it, but eventually said, to heck with it, we'll do it ourselves, if I read all of this correctly.

You read it incorrectly. It's more that she said "What, we have to do it ourselves? Forget it then."

To wit -- she tried to get the government to pay for the bridge, but after everything was said and done it was still about $400 million short, and Alaska would have had to pay for that themselves. At that point, the bridge thing tanked, and not just because of her. As in, she recognized it was over and ruefully acknowledged as much -- she was for it until then.

I don't have a huge issue with it in and of itself. I think the whole thing is pretty emblematic, though.

- McCain either didn't actually know her role before he chose her, or else contradicted what is supposed to be one of his bedrock convictions and a central campaign tenet (anti-earmarks) to choose an earmarker par excellence

- McCain either knowingly lied or was clueless when he made her "opposition" to the Bridge to Nowhere a central part of his introduction of her

- Palin and the McCain campaign CONTINUE to lie even though the untruthfulness has now been pointed out over and over again. It's pure brazenness.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Absolutely. They are trying to brazen it out, and hell, it'll probably work, b/c the media is too cowardly to call them out on it fully. Obama needs to keep hitting the fact that they are liars, though.

The idea that Palin is some sort of anti-earmark warrior is a joke. AK rolls in earmarks and gov't spending. They are the biggest pig in America when it comes to pork spending. Palin actively worked to get her piece of the pie as mayor and then continued to do so as Governor. AK has requested tons of earmarks and spending this year. At what point has she learned that they are bad? The day that she was tapped by McCain?

What a joke

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

haha, the Obama camp on Palin's continued lie -

Quote:

On the same day that dozens of news organizations have exposed Governor Palin's phony Bridge to Nowhere claim as a 'naked lie,' she and John McCain continue to repeat the claim in their stump speeches. Maybe tomorrow she'll tell us she sold it on eBay," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

More of this!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
No, I have NOT conceded that her motives were not what she portrayed them to be.

Foxfyre wrote:
So while she is technically correct that she turned it down, she may be stretching it as to her motives for doing so. (Imagine a politician doing that!)

I'm not trying to be mean. I am just honestly at a loss as to what words mean to you.

Its the difficulty in communicating in this medium I think. I think were we face to face there would be far much less nitpicking of semantics because there would hopefully be more give and take allowed in how we express ourselves.

I believe it cannot be disputed that her motives for turning down the bridge was that it would be fiscally irresponsible to allocate as much state monies to build it as would be necessary. She most likely at some point did say 'I turned down the bridge from nowhere - if we want a bridge, we will build it ourselves' to somebody at some point. Her motive in the convention speech was to emphasize her fiscally conservative conscience. The statement was misleading, however, as it suggested that her fiscal conscience turned down the bridge in a way different from the way it actually happened. That was not a lie. It was a stretch. This was not to slime somebody else, however. It was a line intended to punch up her resume.

All politicians do it. I'm not condoning it, but they ALL do it.

It wasn't all that much different from her line about putting the government jet on Ebay. And she did. Just like she did turn down the bridge. Those not paying close attention to detail might think she was saying that she sold the jet on Ebay. She didn't, but neither did she say that she did. The plane was ultimately sold for a pretty good price. So was she misleading? Her critics say yes and they are trying to slime her with a Palin lie about that.

Those who accuse her of a flipflop on the bridge are being equally dishonest in not pointing out that she flipflopped only after the cost of the bridge had gone up substantially changing the funding equation considerably. Yes her position on it was a flipflop, but there were extenuating circumstances there that must be included to assess her motives for that flipflop with any kind of intellectual honesty.

0 Replies

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know