September 12, 2008
Vote for McCain's Biggest Lie About Barack (Brent Budowsky)
Enter my "first of the campaign" contest to choose the biggest lie McCain has told about Barack Obama. Only direct factual claims by McCain that are clearly false can qualify. We are not looking for disagreements, we are looking for bald-faced lies such as McCain's claim that Barack called Palin a pig, that Barack would raise taxes on Middle Americans, and that Barack favors comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners.
Choose your favorite lie, and even better, bring a lie that I've forgotten to center stage that I can include in a forthcoming column in The Hill newspaper. Here are the first 12 John McCain lies that I am entering into the contest. I look forward to your comments and any additional lies you can enter yourself.
1. McCain's lie that Barack called Sarah Palin a pig.
2. McCain's lie that Barack would raise taxes on the middle class when the truth is that almost all middle-income voters would get a tax cut under his program.
3. McCain's lie that Barack preferred shooting hoops to visiting wounded troops.
4. McCain's lie that Barack wanted to bring reporters on his planned visit to wounded troops.
5. McCain's lie that Barack wanted to bring television cameras to the wounded troops visit.
6. McCain's lie that Barack wanted to bring partisan staffers to visit the wounded troops.
7. McCain's lie that Barack favored total sex education for kindergarteners when the truth is that Barack wanted to teach kindergarten children to say no to sexual predators who want to rape, kill and abuse the children. I assume John McCain does not want teachers to join families in teaching little children to say no to those who would rape and kill them. This is my choice, so far, for the sickest and most demented McCain lie about Barack.
8. McCain's lie that Sarah Palin will fight against earmarks when McCain himself publicly condemned Palin’s earmarks before she was his VP choice, when Palin hired the biggest pork lobby firm in Alaska to bring home more pork, and when Palin sought this year $200 million more in earmarks in a 70-page presentation to her close collaborator Sen. Ted Stevens (R), whom Palin pretends to oppose.
9. McCain's lie that Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere when Palin actually supported it for years, including her campaign for governor, and said she wanted maximum pork while Alaska had power in Congress to pass her pork.
10. McCain's lie that he wanted to end the ugly politics and personal attacks and nasty partisanship in Washington at the end of a four-day convention that was nothing but ugly politics, personal attacks and nasty partisanship planned by McCain's former advisers, who did the same for George W. Bush in Washington.
11. McCain's lie that he honors community service when his entire convention was a planned demeaning and ridicule of Catholic parishes, Protestant ministries and Jewish temples that helped unemployed steelworkers because his focus groups told him that a slander of "community organizers" would win support by appealing to the lesser instincts of human nature.
12. McCain's lie that Sarah Palin is qualified to be commander in chief with American troops in combat in two wars, fighting a battle against global terror that McCain says is the great mission of our times with dangers of mushroom clouds leveling cities, because she is the commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard and because Alaskans with binoculars can see Russians. This is so ridiculous even McCain can't say this with a straight face.
This a short list of my favorite McCain lies. I will have a special prize for the winner, either explaining which of these lies should be the winner, or even better, posting other lies that should be considered for the contest. I will buy lunch for the first McCain supporter who fesses up and uses this line in their comment: "I confess that McCain lied about this" (and then tell us the lie you confess to).
I will be writing an upcoming column in the The Hill about lying by McCain and might well use any good material from this contest. If you read this on a website other than The Hill’s Pundits Blog, please cross-post your favorite lies on this site to be included in the award ceremony honoring the person who picks the biggest of many whoppers John McCain is telling in this campaign.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 169 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
McCain's lie that Obama said Iran was "tiny" and "didn't pose a threat" by grossly editing/chopping the following quote from Obama:
"I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"
As for Lie #12: I can see the moon and stars out my window every night. Should I contact NASA today to inquire why my expertise has not been sought sooner? LOL
Comment by Melissa — September 12, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Brent: I'm sorry but you really don't understand taxes. A tax on one is a tax on all. If you're that concerned about taxes for lower classes why don't you demand an elmination or reduction of the taxes that the poor pay. Income taxes are only one portion of the picture. There are sales taxes, gas taxes, taxes on utilities, hidden taxes on products that consume about 24% of the poor's income in one fashion or other. Also, Barack wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That would turn out to be a tax on everyone. As far as the lipstick on a pig comment, it's not a lie to say that Barack is inexperienced. If he had any politically savvy he wouldn't find himself in a position of being accused of attacking a woman. Is this how a community organizer operates? Being dissonance into a community? Let's face it, Sarah Palin's acceptance speech where she labeled Barack as a community organizer will be identified as the turning point of the election. In one phrase she identified and defined Barack Obama for all time. He's a glorified community organizer without much of a platform. That's not a lie. That's a fact. If he had a good platform he wouldn't be sailing through a sea of troubles right now. Maybe he should go back to being a community organizer because that's what everyone thinks of him now.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 12, 2008 @ 9:16 am
As usual, Melissa, you are now the front
runner. Good lies!!! This is going to
be fun. To Robert and the Repubs here,
cant you even admit that one thing McCain
said, of all of these, is a lie? Do you
guys actually believe McCain's comments
are all true? Come on. Surely there is
one of the McCain lies you must agree is
a lie? Dont you want to enter my contest
as the Repentant Republican award?
Comment by Brent — September 12, 2008 @ 9:49 am
After Obama delivered his Democratic nominee acceptance speech, McCain gave a little speech of his own. McCain pointed out that Obama's plan to end Bush's malfeasance, to rectify Bush's transgressions, and to restore America's standing as well as address health care and job security, was not "change we can believe in."
With all due (lack of) respect, that is a lie.
In fact, and to boot, McCain's hastily spit slicked "change" comb over is a lie.
Comment by Bertoray — September 12, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Number 12 is the biggest one of all. Biden doesn't even need to rehearse for this debate. He can just make something up and he'll win. Someone needs to tell the Republicans that the American voters are very informed. We don't look to just T.V. for information. WE search the information highway………
Comment by Yvonne — September 12, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Brent Dearest
I thought your were into a non-partisanship playing field. You are squiring feul onto the fire. Your above list of items are simply your opinion, which you are entitled.
However, I hope you are not falling into the cesspool of MSNBC-types evoking an unfair use of data.
You recal your own profile on The Hill evokes concern for the inevitable next terror attack on the U.S. Don't you think your list is an insult to the present administration? GWB reacted to 9-11 tragedy, and our nation has taken vigilent steps towards protecting our citizens. What responce was taken after the initial 1993 World trade tower bombing…? I think the Dems showed a head in the sand response. I think they were too idealistic to think it could ever happen again, I think, I think, I think…
Your list is another Democratic attempt to dismiss the incredible accomplishments of Obama's opponents. Very petty.
I think your list is actually helping McCain/Palin. The public has matured, and now has a very jaded eye with the liberal media.
I am sure our troops are tossing and turning at night worrying about the bridge to nowhere.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Brent watch out. You are going to be accused of a Left-Wing Conspiracy.
Comment by Yvonne — September 12, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Brent;
McCain lied when he said that Obama has never reached across to teh republicans but Obama worked with Dick Lugar, Tom Coburn and he was about to work with McCain until McCain had one of his famous hissy fit.
Comment by Mike Coleman — September 12, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Lies and negative campaigning are the only thing they have…
that and the "they'll tax you to death" mantra. Never talking about the $10 TRILLION DEBT BUSH AND NEOCONS CREATED.
I remember telling my Republican relatives that I was so happy McCain was nominated so we can expect a clean, polite, respectful campaign.
Not talking about fringe groups or 501s, etc.
It still is so with the Obama campaign, but the mainline republicans and McCain have been a sadly disappointing. McCain and his campaign are being as dirty as they come.
I am glad Obama is not responding in kind, but simply defending himself - and with good humor I see.
It's a precarious gamble but IMO most people with tire of the nasty bull and turn to Obama for solace, as they did in the primary.
It is also kind of referendum on how many ignorant fascist-leaning people there are in this country.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am
My 90-year-old mother said she is voting Republican. She did not know our country has been running on $10 Trillion debt, mostly borrowed from the Communist Chinese, and we pay interest to them on it every year.
I had to tell her.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 12, 2008 @ 11:36 am
I am going to establish a prize that I am
going to call the "Stepford Wife Republican
Award" for the best shill who automatically
agrees with everything Republicans say.
I have four candidates who are regulars here,
LOL. Meanwhile somebody needs to write the
cue card telling Sarah Palin what the Bush
Doctrine is. High school students know that
one. On one level, that was a laugher. On
another level, if she is ever the president
and gets the 3 am call, it is too late for
her to take a high school correspondence
course. Keep those lies coming. We are getting
some great material here, even the Stepford
Republicans are tongue twisted today.
Comment by Brent — September 12, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Friday, September 12, 2008…
It's Friday Ya Bastids!
SARAH’S FIRST INTERVIEW – awwww
So here's the thing…..any comment we, or anyone in the media, make and a good chunk of America is going to make will be met with "You're being unfair! You're gan…
Trackback by Anonymous — September 12, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Brent, it's lunchtime and you don't have may taker on that lunch-date.
I have a better suggestion. School's open. Call the nearest elementary school, ask to speak to the nurse, ask her how many kids come to school hungry every morning because mama is hung-over w/ booze or drugs. Maybe you could sent the nurse a one year supply of peanutbutter and crackers and fruit, for those kids.
Forget about nourishing the nutcases that hate McCain & Palin.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Brent, I agree with you. I have noticed that the MSM isn't abuzz with how great Sarah's interview was. Could it be that she reall doesn't know anything? I can't wait to see Bill O on this.
Comment by Yvonne — September 12, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
#11 Brent
Calling anyone who drafts a position that opposes yours is an automatically shill in your book.
Shills work for and are paid by a political party. I wish I had a shilling in my purse for everytime you people like you accuse others of being shills. I would live in Nordstroms. : )
Just to be clear, I am not shill. I am a Democrat, but this election has turned me off fom many reason. I have not formally changed the paperwork yet, but my vote is engraved in stone.
Cheers for McCain/Palin!
P.S. Did you call the school yet?
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
I took Obama's lipstick comment to refer to Palin when I heard it. You and everyone else knows that it was very soon after the pitbull/lipstick comment, and the connection was unmistakable. When you create a commercial playing both comments side by side, you let the viewer decide.
Obama stated multiple times he will raise the payroll tax limit. This will hit some in the upper middle class very hard, definitely way below his 250K limit. Also, his promises add up to trillions but propose tax increases to a few tens of billions or nonexistent. Given that the upper-income taxpayers pay essentially all the taxes already, there just isn't enough money there to make a dent in Obama's spending promises. To question the consistency of his tax and spend proposals is the right thing to do.
Just yesterday I heard with my own ears Obama saying about Keys when he was running against him that Keys accused him of supporting kindergarten sex education. He proceded to make some jovial comments about the subject but ended "it's the right thing to do". What am I supposed to believe, Obama's denials or my own ears?
The last two claims are just plain ridiculous. For a Presidential candidate to claim that his own VP candidate is qualified is now a lie. You've lost all semblance of of objectivity with these allegations. Shame on you!
Comment by Igor R. — September 12, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Brent,
It's not lies as everyone in a political campaign of such high stakes fudges the truth to achieve specific strategic or tactical goals. It's that American people don't like and don't trust their lives and security to someone like Obama, questionable character, Rev.Wright, timid, demagogue, empty suit, and so on. As simple as that. Let's move on, folks and talk how McCain should deal with Iran and terrorists as President.
Comment by Misha — September 12, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
The all-time lie: Straight Talk Express. Given all of these lies, sounds like one of those brain-teasers, "one of these people is lying, one is a truth-teller." Now, we cannot believe anything that he says.
Comment by May Lewis — September 12, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
McCain's lie on "The View" this morning that Palin had not requested any earmarks as a governor.
Comment by Don — September 12, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Newly processed lie from McCain's visit on The View today– Claiming Palin didn't request earmarks as governor:
WALTERS: What is she going to reform specifically, senator?
MCCAIN: Well, first of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half a billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.
WALTERS: She also took some earmarks there.
BEHAR: A lot.
MCCAIN: No, not as governor she didn’t, she vetoed…
WALTERS: As Mayor.
MCCAIN: Well, look, the fact is that she was a reform governor.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/mccain-palin-view/
Brent, you may never find any Stepford Republicans to take you up on your lunch offer because there are enough McWhoppers going around to keep them fed for a long time.
Comment by Melissa — September 12, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Brent, I see more in common between McCain and Obama. They've both shifted their positions on Cuba and Latin America.
From Interpress Service Sept. 4 2008:
"…In response to a 2003 questionnaire during his run in Illinois for the U.S. Senate, Obama stated that U.S. drug policy had been unsuccessful 'both abroad and at home', and declared that the embargo against Cuba had been a 'miserable failure'.
'I believe that normalisation of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene,' Obama stated.
Five years later, Obama's position on the embargo is nearly identical to that of President Bush and to the eight presidents who preceded him — although Obama has vowed that, if elected, he would allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island by Cuban Americans.
'I will maintain the embargo,' Obama declared in a May 23 speech in Miami, Florida — home to a large and politically influential Cuban-American population. 'It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalising relations.'
In 2000, John McCain also sounded markedly different when discussing Cuba, especially compared to the hard-line rhetoric he has employed during the 2008 campaign.
'I'm not in favour of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro,' McCain said in an interview with CNN. 'In fact, I would favour a road map towards normalisation of relations such as we presented to the Vietnamese and led to a normalisation of relations between our two countries.'
But in a speech earlier this year — also in Miami — McCain made clear that any path toward normalising relations with Cuba under his administration would take place only after there have been serious political reforms on the island nation, including the freeing of political prisoners and the establishment of internationally monitored elections.
'The embargo must stay in place until these basic elements of democratic society are met,' McCain said, echoing official U.S. policy toward Cuba for nearly five decades.
Full article:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/04-3
Vote third party!
Comment by WeLiveInPostRationalCountry — September 12, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
McCain makes me think of a line uttered by a politician in an old Firesign Theater radio play. "And you can believe me - because I never lie, and I'm always right."
My vote goes for lie number ten. McCain knows he can't win without demonizing Obama, so he will continue to throw all the mud he can, and hope that some of it sticks.
Comment by RickM — September 12, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
JFK-HRC, first, I was hoping you would win
the award, so I would know your name and
know you were never for JFK or HRC being
a Republican, LOL. You bet we have Republican
Stepford shills, many Republicans are and
have been since Bush. Everyone here knows
who they are. The Republicans are always
right, even the lies are always right, that
is what a shill is. The shills always
defended George W. Bush to the death, every
Republican mistake, every Republican failure,
always. Until the talking points changed.
Then the shills were for change, pretending
the Bush years did not happen. I gotta laugh.
Comment by Brent — September 12, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
However, I hope you are not falling into the cesspool of MSNBC-types evoking an unfair use of data.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 11:16 am
You mean the same MSNBC that's provided a wall of protection to Bush/Cheney by censoring the Downing Street Memos?
The same MSNBC that never mentions Bush's illegal signing statements?
The same MSNBC that never reported on Karl Rove's caging lists?
The same MSNBC that's too afraid to even mention Sibel Edmond's name?
The same MSNBC that didn't know who Jeff Gannon is and didn't question why he was sleeping over at the Whitehouse?
The same MSNBC that put retired Generals on the air who were all for the Iraq war but never revealed to their viewers that they had been coached in talking points by the Pentagon and were on the payroll of defense companies.
MSNBC has been Bush's best friend.
(I exclude Olbermann from several items on this list. Not all, but several.)
Comment by WeLiveInPostRationalCountry — September 12, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Brent;
I saw part of McCain's interview on The View and his whopper was "I haven't change my position on anything". LOL I know of a lot of changes of his posititions. One of his position changes was the Bush tax cuts.
Comment by Mike Coleman — September 12, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
# 16 To Igor
Wow. You impress me more and more every day. Thank you for getting back to the issues.
Just asking, are you a shill for McCain ? I think you are not exactly like me. Perhaps you are a registered Republican. I have been a life long dem. but I can see smell hear taste and touch. All senses intact. If everyone just uses one of those senses, they have no choice but to vote for McCain/Palin. I think you might agree with me.
# 23 BRENT
Even though we disagree, for some reason, maybe it's your life long expertise on politics that I admire, whatever. I just want to prepare you for that evening in November, when the ballots are all counted, you may need a box of tissues. Until then keep laughing. : )))
By the way, I respect President Bush. He has had a journey that many can appreciate. History will mark him as a hero. He will be remembered as a procurer of Democracy for the world. Does anyone think it was a miracle that this country has not been attacked again? No. While the MSM play war games with their keyboards, Bush is in the trenches keeping the U.S. secure. God Bless President Bush.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Divide divide divide
Stir stir stir
Accomplish nothing accomplish nothing accomplish nothing
Brent you succeeded with all of the above.
Why would you believe any serious independent thinking individual would participate in your game?
I equate you at the same level as Olberrmann. You at times make me laugh, but mostly I have pity for you.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — September 12, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Sarah Palin's so great at pork barrel politics I think she deserves all porcine references.
Comment by uk visa — September 12, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
JFK-HRC, I do not shill for anyone. If you're ever so inclined you can go back and check some of my comments about McCain from prior months and you will see that no shill would write comments like that.
I love America, hate liberalism, Communism, and Soc.ialism and want to make sure that the forces of darkness do not take over. I am especially incensed that such a notorious, dangerous figure as Obama can fool half the country or so through rhetoric alone. Not surprised, because there are plenty of precedents, just angry. I've lived under Soviet Soc.ialism and the United States of America does not deserve a similar fate.
And thanks for the compliment.
Comment by Igor R. — September 12, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
1) McCain's biggest lie to date is that he and/or Palin are the candidates of change.
2) That the democrats are being sexist by asking to talk to Palin and find out what her position is on the issues. McCain and the Bush strategists running his campaign are the sexist pigs. Palin is not permitted to speak except to say what they tell her to say. Do the script what McCain says? Why can't she talk? She got out from behind the veil once (ABC interview) and all said she did okay - at least we got a glimpse of what she stands for. Now we are told that she will be with McCain on his stumps the rest of the campaign. Let's face it, he can't get a crowd without her. She is being used - "eye candy."
3) That he is going back to Washington and clean out all the ME first slobs. No one is more ME first than McCain - witness his "USE" of Palin to draw crowds - that's all about McCain - not country first.
I could go on - but….
Comment by Donna Kauffman — September 12, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
By the way, I respect President Bush. He has had a journey that many can appreciate. History will mark him as a hero. He will be remembered as a procurer of Democracy for the world. Does anyone think it was a miracle that this country has not been attacked again?…
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
—————-
From The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind:
The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211.html
** Lazy ignorant Bush couldn't be bothered on his vacation and as a result the country suffered its worst terrorist attack. Since then the Constiution has been shredded and the debt has gone through the roof…all in name of supposedly keeping us safe. Bush is the worst President in history, Period.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — September 12, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
How about both Cindy and John McCain vowing not to run negative ads? Both lies. That's on video.
Comment by Heidi Reed — September 12, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
29 Igor…
I know you are not a shill… that's why I asked. : )
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
Donna Kauffman, "sexist by asking to talk to Palin and find out what her position is on the issues" - you're making up your own reality and living in it. In the last year and a half, discounting the O'Reilly interview last week, name ONE similarly hostile interview with Obama by any MSM or even Fox or ANY nationally known correspondent. In the first hours after she became a national figure she was accused of faking a pregnancy to cover up her daughter's, of being a member of a sessessionist party, and of being an unfit mother. She has just been compared to Pontius Pilatus because they were both "governors" while Obama was simultan
Comment by Igor R. — September 12, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
#24 Weliveinpost…
MSNBC is a struggling business. 4-years ago I saw Matthews act the same way about Bush as he is acting about Obama. The operative word is ACT.
Olberman is unique. He was hired to be controversial, and over the top. For him, it just comes naturally. Now he has a fan club but the fans are limited to his co-worker-companions.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 12, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
sorry, submitted too early
simultaneously compared to Jesus. Every one of her expense reports has been examined which was not the case for the three other top people in the race. Mike Penn in an interview today said the media are on dangerous ground with her. It's obvious to everyone: they are out to destroy her. Wake up and smell the fish.
Comment by Igor R. — September 12, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
McCain’s lie that he is ready to be president when, as his first “presidential” decision, he let’s Grover Norquist, James Dobson and others choose his running mate, a totally unprepared women out of nowhere, vetted only for her appeal to the Christian base, NRA members and disgrunted Hillary supports.
Comment by Cynthia Barton — September 12, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
My posting is McCain's 3 biggest lies.
1) He is for change
2) He's not sexist
3) He's about America not McCain.
All lies.
It is not sexist to ask a candidate their position on the issues.
It is sexist not to let her talk, except to say what has been scripted for her by male strategists. She hardly needs a man to talk for her, and if she does - she is definately not qualified for the office. I for one want to hear from HER what she thinks.
Comment by Donna Kauffman — September 12, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
McCain lie - Democracts are "tax and spend" liberals.
FACT: President and Increase or Decrease in National Debt.
D Kennedy - decrease 8.2%
D Johnson - decrease 8.3%
R Nixon - decrease 2.9%
R Ford - increase .1%
D Carter - decrease 3.2%
R Reagan - increase 11.3 & 9.2%
R GHW Bush - increase 13.1%
D Clinton - decrease .6 & 8.2%
R Bush - increase 6.9%
From 1978-2005 Democrats increased Federal Spending by 9.9%
From 1978-2005 Republicans increased Federal Spending by
12.1% and increased the Federal Debt by 36.4%
Iraq has now cost the US taxpayer over $553 billion. To fund this we have gone into debt to many countries but primarily to Japan ($592 billion) and China ($502 billion). The interest on our foreign debt eats up almost 10% of all federal receipts ($240 billion in 2007 & 2008)and puts us in a very percarious position in the world.
Republicans have spent us into astronomical debt at the same time they have cut taxes on the wealthy and made it easier for corporations to take jobs overseas, which means lower tax dollars - but not because they have cut taxes on working people - rather because they have eliminated good paying jobs (incomes).
We need a change and McCain will bring more of this, not the change we need.
Comment by DR — September 13, 2008 @ 1:38 am
Obama's biggest lie: himself. This man appeared out of nowhere, never explained huge pieces of his life, only obfuscated with the two glowing reviews of himself he has written, and fooled a bunch of people. Well you know what they say about fooling all the people all the time.
Comment by Igor R. — September 13, 2008 @ 2:08 am
Donna, one thing I have been pounding the
table on privately is for Obama to send out
the woman Senators, the Speaker etc in a
major event, 24-48 hours, and focused on the
bread and butter economic issues. Draw the
contrast with our serious women officeholders
and Palin who doesn't even know the Bush
Doctrine, with heavy economic focus. The
whole concept of the McCain lies is to divert
attention from Republican economics and
McCain's problems with a smear attack on
Barack, which is the tactic to divert attention. I have privately and publicly
used the movie the American President with
Michael Douglas as the theme….these are
are serious times that demand serious people.
And run everything from that. The debates
are going to be huge, huge, huge. It is
harder to McCain or anyone to tell these
lies face to face, and it is Barack's best
moment to draw the contrast with economics
and Bush.
Comment by Brent — September 13, 2008 @ 5:05 am
ABORTION…is the greatest difference between the Dems and the Repubs, in my opinion.
Take that out of the equation, and who cares about the rest.
This country needs a good man to lead, both McCain and Obama are good men.
Major difference between voting for Obama and McCain, is what happens to our souls when we die.
Voting for Obama leaves us w/ blood of little babies on our hands. On the day I meet God, I don't want to have to explain why I would vote with a Democratic Party who terminates innocent defensless babies.
Men and women, you don't have to vote for abortion. It's a bad thing.
As Obama evolves and ages, he may realize it is a bad thing. There are many ways to avoid abortion including, adoption, contraception, and just having and raising the child with love.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 13, 2008 @ 10:15 am
I vote for the sex education lie. It's a pretty sad that Sen. McCain or anyone would distort this issue.
Comment by Sally — September 13, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Brent, does "misdirecting blame" equal lying?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/52363.html
Comment by M. Richard — September 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
"I am not a crook." Whoops! Wrong Republican.
How about: Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is "close to" Russia and borders Canada.
With credit to Ted Koppel, I live in Virginia, but it doesn't make me an expert on North Carolina or Maryland.
Overall, I'd have to vote for the comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners. I had to take an extra blood pressure pill after I saw that whopper.
Comment by bobdog — September 13, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Starting to get more stories about the McCain
lies, everyone. Almost every newspaper and
television station has started to report this
in some way. Expect stories on McCain's new
credibiblity gaps. Here is the new lie that
Republicans are trying today, that Palin really
knew what the Bush doctrine is!
Comment by Brent — September 13, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
DR: Your post is a lie. Amongst other fabrications in your post, Clinton increased the National Debt. If anyone disputes that, just go to the Bureau of Public Debt.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 13, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Only an Muslim terrorist that secretly poses as an African American would write a bill teaching kindergarteners about sex.
McCain is aligning himself with the worst KKK-style fascist gossip-mongers.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 13, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
McCain's accusation that Obama called Palin a pig,
raises the ghost of
EMMETT TILL
another Chicagoan, who visited a small town in the South.
He was a 14-year-old boy lynched in 1955 for whistling at a white woman.
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/pdf/hs_es_emmett_till.pdf
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 13, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Voting for Obama leaves us w/ blood of little babies on our hands. On the day I meet God, I don't want to have to explain why I would vote with a Democratic Party who terminates innocent defensless babies.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 13, 2008 @ 10:15 am
I will not be voting for McCain or Obama.
Neither has said a word about as issue I care dearly about that'll harm more babies (and adults) than the abortion issue.
Genetically Modified Food is potentially dangerous to both an individual and the environment.
No scientific testing has EVER been done on humans to see if it's safe for consumption. No one has any idea how growing food that's been manipulated at the genetic level affects the environment.
I don't want to have to explain to my g-d how I let Monsanto poison every person on Earth and the environment.
You fundamentalists are so micro-focused on one issue you miss everything else.
What about the depeleted uranium in Iraq that's causing children to be born with cancer. Will you join me in demanding impeachment of the President for this and many other war crimes which are killing more babies than the abortion issue?
Or do you only care about an ISSUE and not the babies?
Comment by WeLiveInPostRationalCountry — September 13, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
RE: 42.
JFK-HRC wrote "ABORTION…is the greatest difference between the Dems and the Repubs, in my opinion."
———-
Not true. They are hypocritical about it. While they've said it should be Constitutionally banned in the platform, but the difference between abortion rates between Republican women and Democrats is that Republicans are only slightly lower.
Abortion rates were higher under Reagan for all women, went down under Clinton and shot back up under Bush.
There is more fear of less maternal post-partem support for mothers under Republican rule.
It is not an unfounded paranoia. Republican cut all support systems for unfortunate women and don't allow her to stay home with her baby more than 3 months after birth.
She must do full time jobs searches or work to get any kind of help, even housing and food.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 13, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
RE: 42. JFK-HRC
Democrats are for keeping it legal. Making it illegal would not only kill the babies, it would kill many mothers as well.
No Democrat wants to see a woman get an abortion, but prohibition would be much worse, and the abortionists would not be as liable and responsible under the law for malpractice.
I admit the Democrats could do better with their verbology and articulation of the issue, but even republicans use the word "choice" if they are for keeping it legal.
It is more a question of "privacy" than "choice"
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 13, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
Report: Palin Did Not Visit Iraq
By Anne E. Kornblut
WASILLA, Alaska — Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin are scrambling to explain details of her only trip outside North America — which, according to a new report, did not include Iraq, as the McCain-Palin campaign had initially claimed.
Palin made an official visit to see Alaskan troops in Kuwait in July of 2007. There, she made a stop at a border crossing with Iraq, but did not actually visit the country, according to a new report in the Boston Globe.
Earlier, McCain aides had said that Palin visited Iraq, and expressed indignation at questions about her slim foreign travel.
The campaign also said she had been to Ireland; that turned out to have been a refueling stop.
In her ABC interview, Palin said she had also been to Canada and to Mexico, where her advisers said she went on vacation.
Obama aides described the new revisions to Palin's account as part of a growing pattern of deception. "The McCain campaign said Governor Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, but now we know she supported it. They said she didn't seek earmarks, but now we know she hired a lobbyist to get millions in pork for her town and her state. They said she visited Iraq, but today we learned that she only stopped at the border. Americans are starting to wonder, is there anything the McCain campaign isn't lying about?" Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor asked in a statement e-mailed to reporters.
A short time later, the Obama campaign circulated a new Bloomberg story that questions whether the McCain campaign has been sending out false crowd estimates.
On two occasions since Palin joined the ticket, McCain aides have cited law enforcement sources in claiming enormous crowds — but law enforcement officials interviewed by Bloomberg denied having given such estimates.
Comment by felinetta — September 13, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Obama did vote for sex education for kindergartners. And it's no secret. See the link for the bill. Obama's lying about it, and sorry Brent, you are either misinformed or you're lying about it. Here's the link.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 13, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Hi. My thought after reading of your plan to writing a column, to expose the many lies of McCain, is this following:
Of course in the grand scheme of things, it may not matter, but did McCain actually choose personally Palin for VP? I have listened to many ideas and opinions, so I am not sure. In one report I learned (it may have been an opinion) McCain wanted some else for his VP.
Comment by C.Purinton — September 13, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT Aren't EXACTLY CORRECT…
Obama's Not Exactly……..
1.) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google'Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that…and for more. Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. Whe n Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/290390
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1982271/posts
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama. Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From….and for more….go to…..http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam" http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book). February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted -&nb sp;NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rath er handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 (That's 15 Million) who don't have to buy it.
39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russan army did the liberating.
Comment by Igor R. — September 13, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
I'm still trying to find out where McCain got his information about Palin being the most popular Governor in the United States. Is that another lie?
Comment by louise — September 13, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
Brent,
1. You rehash old issues.
2. You vainly hang onto what you perceive as the truth. 90% of what you cite is indeed fact yet you continue to cry about it.
Keep trying. Your attempts are amusing at best. Signs of a desperate man who knows what the final score to this fight will be. Too bad your man Obama isn't experienced enough to go the distance…
Comment by ObamaNOT — September 13, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Hey Brent. Not that you're one for facts and figures, but take a look at the latest state by state Rasmussen Poll numbers. Interesting. Average the numbers for Obama and McCain and what do you get?
Obama 43%
McCain 47%
Keep up the boo hooing but I don't think it's helping Obama.
Comment by ObamaNOT — September 13, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Here's some more great numbers for you to sweat Brent. Check the latest balance of power statistics from Rasmussen:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
This has Obama with 253 electoral votes and McCain 247 without toss ups. The four toss up states ar CO, VA, NM and NV.
Colorado has voted red 9 out of the past 10 elections. No democratic candidate has won VA since LBJ. NV has historically been red as well. That leaves NM which has always been up in the air.
So likely 27 more electoral votes for McCain and 5 more for Obama for a total of McCain 274 and Obama 258. There's your prediction Brent. I know it's painful to look at, but that's the likely outcome.
Comment by ObamaNOT — September 13, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Igor, I am not going to answer you item by
item but he was there at a concentration camp,
so your post goes into the list of lies. It
is true Barack got the camp wrong, but there
was a camp and the story was basically true.
HRC_JFK you should change your name. I respect
your views on abortion but if you would never
for any pro-choice candidate, you, too, enter
the litany of lies unless you will tell us
either a) you were never really for HRC, or
b) you would indeed vote for a pro-choice
candidate. You gotta get your story straight.
Which is it? To post rational, sorry, you
say you wont vote for Obama or McCain, that
means you are voting for McCain and Palin and
the Supreme Court and attorney general they
would name. Which violates the principles
you post about. An abstention by you is a vote
for McCain. Take responsiblity for what you
do. If you did the same in 2000 and voted
for Ralph congratulations for Bush. To the
person who posted about the poll, I dont care
about polls and have rarely posted about them.
The election will be decided by the debates,
I predict. Lets see the polls after the
debates. Meanwhile thanks to all who post
the good lies. My column in the paper next
Tuesday may be an incendiary attack on McCain's
lies and the weakness in the press reporting
them. I have dealt with this topic twice
before in the paper, this one will read like
Thomas Paine's indictment of George III and
the ideas here are helpful. I will make a
final decision on the column topic Monday
morning but right now, the lies are the front
runner so keep these good lies coming.
Comment by Brent — September 13, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
McCain lies about always supporting our troops. Excerpts from article written by Bob Geiger
He voted AGAINST:
*S. Amdt. 149,(2005) which would increase Veterans medical care by $2.8 billion
*S.Amdt. 1852,(2005) $10 million for "readjustment counseling services". again in 2006, requesting $1.5 billion for Veterans medical care and $430 million for the Department of Veteran Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for Veterans.
*S.Amdt.2735, (2006), which was intended to “…support the health needs of our veterans and military personnel…" the measure proposed additional funding to shore up the failing infrastructures at Veterans hospitals all over the country — think Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
*S.Amdt. 4781 (2006)support research for Traumatic Brain Injury — the signature wound of the Iraq war — with a measly $2 million in funding
*S.Amdt. 3143,(2006)would have capped TRICARE fees and protected Veterans from escalating prescription drug costs.
*S.Amdt. 2634 and S.Amdt. 344,(2005)that would have funded additional medical care and readjustment counseling "…for [Iraq] Veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder."
*S.Amdt. 1937 (2005 and 2006) would have indexed the Veterans' health care benefits pool to take "…into account the annual changes in the Veteran's population and inflation."
*S.Amdt.2737,(2006) which would have rolled back capital gains tax cuts to purchase much-needed equipment for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John "Support-The-Troops" McCain voted against all of those while offering no similar measures of his own, failing to push his party to find their own way to help America's troops and Veterans and being entirely willing to spend $12 billion a month to keep them in harm's way.
McCain even proved a hypocrite on legislation like the 2005 Durbin measure that would have exempted military people from some facets of the hideous Bankruptcy Bill by disallowing "… certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to service members, and to allow service members to exempt property based on the law of the State of their pre-military residence."
The IAVA Congressional Rating calculated the grades of each member of Congress by looking at "…each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families" and matching each Representative or Senator's votes with the organization's own view of what constitutes true support for active troops, Veterans and their families.
And what grade did the IAVA give John McCain? A big fat D.
The IAVA gave Barack Obama a B+ for his support of legislation affecting the military and Veterans.
Comment by Laura — September 13, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
To #50 Weliveinpost…
a) Sorry you think that I am a single issue fundamentalist. I worry about a lot of issues, but this one strikes me as something we can easily re-do to correct a wrong on behalf of the helpless lives being vacuumed for the almighty dollar. It is hypocritical of Americans to allow abortions - when they also say they value human life.
# 51 Fred from Oregan
Your argument on the ratio of women that undergo abortions by their political affiliation is uniquue, but it only proves my point. I frankly doubt it is valid… but it is not germane.
What is relavent is these women opting for Abortion are doing so out of convenience and irresponsibility.
Are you the type of person that never stops to help people in accidents, do you drive by animals that are dead in the road, and let someone else deal with it? I doubt it, you probably roll up your sleeves and get a little dirty. You have heart, give a little more thought to this issue…and what you get in return is immeasurable. Dont go around justifying abortion. Perhaps you were involve once with a girl who had one. Forgive yourself and help prevent the next one, my friend.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 13, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
Lie:
McCain on the view said that Palin was the greatest vice president candidate ever.
When asked: "better than Jefferson or Madison?"
he said that politicians are prone to exaderation or hyperbole.
Comment by phil — September 13, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
Palin with Gibson: "I never banned a book, never desired to ban a book."
From the NYT: "But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book 'Daddy’s Roommate' on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein."
**********
McCain's camp is caught lying about attendance at their events:
"McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal.
Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events.
In recent days, journalists attending the rallies have been raising questions about the crowd estimates with the campaign. In a story on Sept. 11 about Palin's attraction for some Virginia women voters, Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher estimated the crowd to be 8,000, not the 23,000 cited by the campaign."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics
**********
McCain caught having a hypocritical moment over Army Future Combat Systems:
On Sept. 8, the Republican presidential candidate told a rally crowd in Lee’s Summit, Mo., about an Obama video message to a liberal advocacy group.
“He promised them he would, quote, ‘slow our development of Future Combat Systems,’” McCain said, according to wire reports. “This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”
Flashback to July, however, when his campaign furnished McCain’s economic plan to The Washington Post, declaring that “there are lots of procurements — Airborne Laser, [C-17] Globemaster, Future Combat System [sic] — that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed.”
In fact, McCain has long criticized the over-budget, behind-schedule FCS program. In 2005, he blasted the Army for allowing the program to balloon to $161 billion, and forced the service to rewrite the main FCS contract."
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/
Comment by Melissa — September 13, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Brent, do you consider it fair to attack one statement that's undeniably true because Obama has no American uncles, and call the entire list "lies". It seems like you're on some war path to call anything that McCain says other than "I'm John McCain" a lie. It seems like the Obama campaign is on the same path. Perhaps they remember fondly the period when Hillary's outrageous assertions arguably cost her the Presidency. Perhaps they, and you, feel this is what needs to be done because THIS time the gloves are REALLY coming off. Just remember the boy who cried wolf.
Comment by Igor R. — September 13, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
I wish all liberals were THIS honest: Palin simply makes this nice black lady SICK. I wish all the libs here would admit: Republicans make you sick, Bush makes you sick, McCain makes you sick, Palin makes you sick. Why accuse them of lies when you yourself can just tell the truth: you are sick of the last 8 years, your guy deserves to win, and everything else is unpleasant details. Might as well not accuse every sentence coming out of the McCain campaign of being a lie.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1161035,CST-NWS-mitch14.article
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 12:46 am
Thank you Laura for the reminder!
"The IAVA gave Barack Obama a B+ for his support of legislation affecting the military and Veterans. . . McCain, a big, fat D."
One of these (the better of the two) has been "mysteriously" taken down - but this gives truth to McCain's lie about having received "every award" from Veteran's Groups - and he was confronted with it head on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzr3pdXqZ98&feature=related
Youtube is full of McCain's lies or evidence of his double-talk, distortions and outright lies. With his surrogates leaping into action to spit-shine (erase) the real truth, they might not be there for long, however.
Comment by Justess — September 14, 2008 @ 1:20 am
#66 Igor, don't ask Brent to sift through that sewage! Those items have already been debunked by numerous websites.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/18/63135/4879
Did you actually hear Terry Anderson provide this list on his program? You'd think if he took the time to compile it, he'd also want credit for it on his website. Yet, there's mysteriously nothing there. There is, however, a copy of the same document on Rense with attribution to Douglas Branham. Hmm.
Why don't you tell us the real source for the urban legends, Igor? Did some Republican hack think it would sound more emphatic if they claimed it came from a black man?
Comment by Melissa — September 14, 2008 @ 2:02 am
On Saturday, Obama's radical supporters pulled the cable supplying the video outside the auditorium filled to capacity. These animals are in a struggle of their lives. No effort to suppress information is beneath them. The latest campaign of "McCain is a liar" is just one of the signs of their desperation.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 2:27 am
Igor, you made a statement about Obama's
relative and the camps that was either a lie,
or ignorant of the facts. Own up. Take
responsibility. Actually I think Sarah Palin
is Igor, Jon, or Robert posting on this site.
I think is Sarah is posting here on The Hill
Pundits Blog incommunicado. New stories every
day how she operates in Alaska like a mafia
don with vendettas used for family fueds,
revenge, firing people left and right, using
taxpayer money and government power. She
acts like our Republicans here post, so maybe
she has been posting here all along! Kudos
to Laura and Melissa for some good lie material
on military matters with great documentation
and facts. I dare any Republican here to try
to challenge even one of the facts that Laura
and Melissa have proven about McCain's very
poor record on a list of veterans and military
issues.
Comment by Brent — September 14, 2008 @ 10:06 am
Brent: Your facts aren't straight on that sex education issue for kindergartners. See 54. The bill states clearly what is involved in the sex education program and it ain't about predators.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 14, 2008 @ 11:17 am
forgot about this one (there's so many)
*The new GI Bill (S.22 and HR 2702)would expand education benefits for veterans who served at least three years in the military after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
The Senate passed the bill 75-22. McCain opposed the GI Bill expansion and was not in Washington for the vote.
McSame lied that he takes "a back seat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans,"
He talks about the importance of increasing the size of the U.S. military. To entice more volunteers, he said, the government should focus on incentives: “One of the things we ought to do is provide [the troops with] significant educational benefits in return for serving.”
A few days later, McCain announced that he opposes a bipartisan measure to renew and expand the GI Bill.
McCain’s argument(lie)is that if the government makes college more affordable for the troops, they might be inclined to leave the military, rather than re-enlist.
Faiz at TP reports on the latest Congressional Budget Office analysis, which sets the record straight.
While the report explains that troop retention will decline because some troops will take advantage of their new education benefits, the loss in retention will be entirely made up for by increased military recruits:
“Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.”
Comment by Laura — September 14, 2008 @ 11:51 am
McCain has one of the worst voting records
on veterans of any Democrat or Republican,
issue by issue, year after year, it is true,
check the ratings. Many veterans find it
obnoxious that McCain spends hours touting
his own heroism, which almost no other vets
do, and then votes against Afghantistan, Iraq
and Vietnam vets on countless votes doing back
years. They find it outrageous and it is
interesting how many vets have visceral
reaction to McCain. Maybe Robert, Igor,
Jon, and Obamanot (with help from JFK-HRC
who never supported either of them) can write
30 point posts with McCain ratings from the
vets groups. They wont do it, but it would
be a howler if they tried.
Comment by Brent — September 14, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
To Brent #71
Your words: " Mafia don "
HaHa!
That's a new stttrrreeeettttccchhhhh. Watch out tony Soprano's… Here comes Sarah Palino…
You got me to giggle again!
How many bowls of Cherrios did you consume this AM…? I suggest Post's Caranberry Nut Bran…
You guys are getting so nervious, I can hear your knees clacking together.
Vote McCain/Palin
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 14, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
#61 Brent
Sorry, I just noticed your comment to me, imbedded in the response to Igor's note.
Well, Brent, I appreciate your inquiry. I don't blame you for questioning my two-sides. I ask myself all the time, what the hell is the abortion issue doing in politics. I wish it wasn't. But it is.
I am on a journey. As a life long Dem, I admit, I voted for GWB twice. Because of the Abortion issue, my conscience would not allow me to put selfish motives before defenseless human life.
As you know I supported HRC because of her healthcare ideals, and because of information I came by through one of my 9-11 burn patients, I learned how much she did for people behind the scenes. I learned how authentic she is. I also realized that this woman didn't have to ever work agin in her life, but she is a missionary in a frumpy pantsuit, who I came to truly respect. She worked as an angel for people.
I identify with many Dem phylosophies, as most Americans are one or two paychecks away from the poor house. I love that we help the poor on a one to one basis. I love that we go out into the communities and teach contraception. I despise that most funds for thhat kind of teaching are spent encouraging young women to elect abortion through certain agencies. I love the Republicans for protecting our country, I love my brothers and nephew for their courage in the military, and protecting all that is improtant. I would never stand on a corner and dishonor our military.
I deplure the female bullies that tell men they have no say in what happens to "their" fetus. I hope men - who are natural protectors - find in their hearts their rightful place and responsibility to save and protect those fetuses. If anyone believes we will meet out parents in heaven, then perhaps they may ponder what they will say to the little fetuses waiting for them in heaven as well.
I can't say I never voted for a Dem. Of course I probably have done so at one time or another, ( my father was a Dem) Ha!
As one reflects back and looks for a reason of why we are here, one must go back to a foundation and a belief system. I feel so fortunate that I was brought up with respect for life.
Everyone asks: Will the women Dems cross over to vote Repub.? I am thinking many men can search their consciences and cross over to help protect the innocent and un-represented lives.
If we could get abortion out of the equation, the U.S. would have a solid foundation to build. Right now as a country, we are just as conflicted as I feel.
Both parties have great ideas, only on party condones, you know, abortion.
That possibility that the unborn are protected rests with McCain/Palin.
Thanks again Brent for asking.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 14, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Brent,
I'm a veteran and support McCain, period.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — September 14, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Here's an example of a well orchestrated mafia with many mafia Dons. Tell us the truth Brent. How long did you know about John Edwards and his affair, while you and others in the media kept pushing him as a viable candidate. That's the biggest lie in this campaign cycle and the public was completely hoodwinked. It appears obvious that the Democrats knew Edwards was a liability but kept him around as an alternate in case Obama or Hillary fell flat. Now the Democrats are facing a perfect storm. They ran a female with no experience at anything and her own party didn't buy it. They bought into the Obamagram of instant political Karma and believe his nonsense of change and hope. Now, they're stuck with him, since the literal white knight of Edwards was thrown off the field due to his indiscretion. Tell us Brent, when did you find out?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 14, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Melissa, the vast majority of these are familiar to me from the time they happened. From Selma to saying he is too inexperienced to run for President, from saying he was a law professor to being a bold leader in Illinois, this guy is full of it. You try to pretty him up with some lipstick, you'll run out of lipstick before he looks pretty.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Brent it is well documented that he said this:
"Uh … I had a … uncle who was one of the … uh … who was part of … the first American troops to go into Auschwitz, and liberate the concentration camps. And the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the … into the attic, and he didn’t leave the house for six months."
It wasn't an uncle in the conventional definition of "uncle" and it wasn't Auschwitz. What should I own up to here, Brent?
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Igor,
Please just answer the question: Did you or did you not hear this list on Terry Anderson's show? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Again, every single one of your urban legends (floating around since May already) was debunked on KOS, Snopes, and a host of other websites. The only question remaining is whether Terry Anderson is misguided or some Republican hack falsely attributed this list to him because they thought it would sound more powerful and ironic coming from a black man.
P.S. I believe the only one you're attuned to is #39 because all of the other lists circulating via email and the internet contain only 38 fabrications. #39 was your personal contribution.
Comment by Melissa — September 14, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Okay, here's my McWhopper contribution for today….
McCain's claim: Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.
McCain's claim: Well, I think Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased. This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.
Palin's claim:Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
REALITY CHECK: Alaska produces ~14% of our OIL, not ENERGY.
REALITY CHECK: Alaska provides a mere 2.4% of all ENERGY consumed by Americans.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html
Comment by Melissa — September 14, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Earlier this week, Barack Obama promised that he would sharpen his attacks on John McCain in response to panicking Democrats watching their gimme election vanishing before their eyes. Instead of coming up with something new, Team Obama has decided to go with an old attack — by calling McCain old. Two days ago, they tried it with the blindingly stupid e-mail ad, and today they’ve apparently farmed the theme out to their surrogates:
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a surrogate for the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised the age and health of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., when discussing the qualifications, or lack thereof, of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
McCaskill said she stood by her remarks that she’s “uncomfortable with anyone, regardless of gender, that is going to be vice president to one of the oldest presidents we’ve ever had that has never met a world leader.”
When Stephanopoulos asked her it was fair to raise McCain’s age, McCaskill doubled-down and mentioned his past skin cancer, saying, “I think what we’re talking about is a reality. Other people talk about his melanoma. We’re talking about a reality here that we have to face. This is someone who’s going to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. All of us know it. I just think that it’s the facts, George, and that’s something that we need to start focusing on, are the facts, instead of distortions and lies.”
Looks like team Obama has decided to fight "distortions and lies" with smears. Let me raise some questions then: has his admitted cocaine use damaged his brain, is that where all the "uh's" and "ah's" when he isn't using the teleprompter come from? Is Biden's history of life threatening aneurysms a concern? Both Obama's mother and father died quite young. Is that a concern?
This morning I heard Phil Berg again. He is the man, a lifelong Democrat and a lawyer, who is suing Obama to prove that he is eligible to run for President due to the exact circumstances of his citizenship situation. His allegations are devastating. I recommend all those who value freedom to visit his website
http://www.obamacrimes.com
and demand that Obama provides the real birth certificate, not the certificate of live birth that keeps changing. Yes, I know that Annenberg front group is ready to swear that Obama is OK, but shouldn't his campaign produce the original birth certificate? Can he say if he was ever adopted by the Indonesian husband of his mother? And can he PLEASE explain what kind of passport he used to travel to Pakistan in his youth?
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
#80 "What should I own up to here, Brent?"
You should own up the fact that Obama's campaign corrected this error months ago. And if you wanted to be really honest (I know, I know..LOL), you could own up to the reality that you're dwelling on a pretty insignificant error while a pair of serial liars named McCain and Palin are on the loose.
"“Senator Obama’s family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II – especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald,” Mr. Burton said in a statement. “Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/obamas-staff-corrects-wwii-story/
Comment by Melissa — September 14, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Dirty Democrats are doing everything to turn Troopergate into the October surprise:
http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/13/obama_partisan_tampers_with_palin_subpoena_list
Who would've thunk it???
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Robert I didn't know about John Edwards' affair
and didn't care. I was never a big Edwards
fan and criticized him harshly for making
money from a hedge fund that evicted Katrina
victims and then going to N.O. to build houses
for Habitat for the people made homeless by
his hedge funds evictions. I posted that at
the time. However, if we are going to make
Edward's affair and his lying about it grounds
for disqualification, dont you (robert, jon,
igor, HRC) agree that John McCain's adultery
and lying about it are equal grounds? I am
not counting McCain's lying about adultery
in my lies because I avoid that kind of issue.
But any Republicans who attack Edwards for
lying about adultery should post right here
and now, equal condemnations of McCain. C'mon
show me your stuff.
Comment by Brent — September 14, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Wow, 81 comments. I think Brent wins for being the most controversial if not plain brainwashed.
#56 Igor: Outstanding!
Comment by ObamaNOT — September 14, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
The Kindergarten Sex ed thing is the insidious and insulting, I agree.
It goes right to the heart of "protecting our innocent children from black muslim liberal who seek to corrupt our Christian way of life."
There is no other way to interpret this message, and it is really sick.
The Dem operatives should show this guy no mercy.
Then again, what would you expect from a guy that kills innocent faceless civilians from 8 miles up with fire bombs (unlike WWII, people that never attacked us or wished us ill) and not only has NO remorse, but calls himself a hero and goes right up the political, social right-wing ladder in life with it?
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 14, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
RE: #63 Comment by JFK-HRC
—-
It is valid. Human nature doesn't change all that much from one party to another. Abortion is intensely personal, and not really a political issue for a woman when she gets pregnant and considers the alternative. I couldn't find the google on it, but read it a while ago.
The slightly higher rate among Democrats is easy to understands. There are more feminists and poor people in the party, but high-power career women and fancy college students tend to be republican and they don't need a baby to "ruin their lives" in their plans either. They also have the more "up-tight" parents concerned about the social-economic status of the daddio.
The religious right is a big counterweight to that factor statisticly.
Obama was the first presidential candidate not to use the word "choice" on his web site and/or treat it as a separate issue.
He is for keeping it legal.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 14, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
alright.. one more
LIE: McCain declared in Wisconsin at a campaign stop,
"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and SOLD it on eBay — and made a profit!"
FACT: the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet, shy of the original $2.7 million purchase price…that's about $300,000 less than a broker's asking price, according to contemporaneous news reports, including a story in the New York Times.
Dan Spencer, the director of administrative services for Alaska's Public Safety Department, said that the Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, brokered the deal (Reynolds made campaign contributions to both Palin and Harris in 2006 and 2007)
Comment by Laura — September 14, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Melissa, no I didn't hear this list and none of it is my personal contribution. I was replying to Brent's criticism of #39 and that's how it got "elevated".
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Melissa, I have nothing to own up to. It was an insignificant error, but it was really two errors in one about the guys family. I know it was corrected by the campaign later when it was noticed. The guy has a habit of saying whatever he feels like, not necessarily with an intent to lie, but he just makes stuff up on the spot and than he has the gall to accuse others of lying. It's my personal opinion that he can't be stupid enough to talk about lipstick so soon after the Palin comment, see the crowd's reaction, and play a victim of a lie as in "lie lie", like "We have records that Obama.
Melissa, when Obama dismisses Bill Ayers as “some guy who lives in my neighborhood” this is campaign malpractice. I've talked enough about their connections, that's my opinion based on what I know of their working relationships.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
# 89 Fred from oregan
Abortion is not personal. that just a cowardly way of washing ones hands of standing up for a sticky subject.
Next thing you'll be telling me is how many of the fetuses were republicans and democrats.
#86 Brent
I don't really care who is rolling in the hay with who, or if they are married single divorced gay or straight. As long as they leave the children out of it.
My choice is monogomy.
In the grands scheme of things human beigns are here to love one another and take care of each other.
How bout a group hug fellow bloggers?
(ooooooo)
Good night y'all! : )
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 14, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Brent, I definitely think that the sex education for kindergarten kids is the worst, mainly because it shows that there is absolutely no boundary for lies and/or distortions to which McCain will give the standard "I approve of this message."
McCain has no honor so far as I am concerned. He may have3 had some in the past, but even that must be called into question.
The other thing about this particular lie is that it portends another 2 months of increasingly slimy below-the-belt campaigning.
After this one, I won't be surprised at what follows.
Comment by smilinjack — September 15, 2008 @ 1:15 am
With the financial crisis worsening now we
know WHY they lie, to hide their bankrupt
economic policies. It's the Marie Antoinette
view of economics, let them eat lies, and this
is where Democrats should hit back, the lies
to hide the joblessness, bankruptcies and
corruptions of Bush economics and Bush politics
which is McCain economics and McCain politics.
Comment by Brent — September 15, 2008 @ 4:15 am
Brent: That's a ridiculous comparison. My point is that many in the media knew about Edwards affair while he was being pushed as viable candidate. It was the biggest lie of this election cycle. As far as McCain's past, the voters in his district didn't care so why should I? I didn't find anything about him lying about his affair, only that he acknowledged it and moved on. But let's look at Obama's sex education for kindergartners. I posted the bill link above. Did you review it? It proves unequivocally that Obama is lying about it. Response?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 15, 2008 @ 6:37 am
Here's the link again on Obama and sex education for kindergartners. All you deniers should read it. Obama lied and now you're repeating the lies.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 15, 2008 @ 8:01 am
Look at Lanny Davis today in full retreat
from his recent praise of McCain and Palin
while they were smearing Barack Obama. This
is what happens when Democrats do business
with Fox News and the Washington Times. Here
is a little inside information; there is huge
disgust in high Democratic circles about these
so-called Democratic strategists who go on
cable and are pathetically weak. So now Lanny
is in full retreat from his praise of McCain.
Give me break. With Democrats like these…
Comment by Brent — September 15, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Brent
Instead of name calling, pigeonholing and categorizing and labeling the candidates and your own supporters like Lannyy Davis, take a moment to digest this.
Keep to the issues.
Compare McCain's position on not allowing Pork, and Obama' unbelievable record of asking for pork… Wasting millions and million on $$$…
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 15, 2008 @ 9:53 am
Check my column in the paper tomorrow which
should be on the the website tonite in the
column section under my name. My theme is:
Republicans say let them eat lies; Democrats
say let them have jobs. A little King Louis
and Marie Antoinette play, there. What
Democrats should do, is run on the prosperity
of the Bill Clinton years and banner how
Democrats are always better for workers and
the economy.
Comment by Brent — September 15, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
"prosperity
of the Bill Clinton years "
Brought to you by the Republican Congress of the 1990's
Comment by Jon Pemberton — September 15, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
"With the financial crisis worsening now we
know WHY they lie, to hide their bankrupt
economic policies. It's the Marie Antoinette
view of economics, let them eat lies, and this
is where Democrats should hit back, the lies
to hide the joblessness, bankruptcies and
corruptions of Bush economics and Bush politics
which is McCain economics and McCain politics."
Wow, Brent, let me remind you once again:
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1) Christopher Dodd (D-CT) $133,900 2) John Kerry (D-MA) $111,000 3) Barack Obama (D-IL) $105,849
Let me also remind you Brent that Obama advisers Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, are both former Fannie Mae CEOs and both of them are waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle.
I know that a catchy phrase like "Marie Antoinette
view of economics, let them eat lies" takes you all the way to the Great Terror, the founding myth of all Marxists, but you still didn't say anything but "I hate Bush and McCain is Bush". That song and dance is getting old.
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Brent, let me also bring to your attention these exciting news from the Politico:
Friends of Lehman
Obama has raised a full $395,574 from employees and PACs of the now-bankrupt Lehman brothers, second only to Hillary Clinton.
That's a lot of change you can spend!
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Take a look at the recent activities of the group that made Obama the community activist he was. This articles carefully explains what the great work that "community activists" are doing (NOT!).
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/NEWS03/809140383
Still want this kind of change? Sure if you're a desperate Democrat with no principles!
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Igor;
Look at part of your post where is says "employees", so now you're telling me that employees are suppose to support the candidate of their choice or are you now using a double standard cause your argument is weak.
Comment by Mike Coleman — September 15, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Igor;
That should have said "employees are not suppose to support the candidate of their choice".
Sorry, fast fingers.
Comment by Mike Coleman — September 15, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
for those of you who insist on being "single issue" voters this election, I suggest that you may do well to dig under the tired rhetoric of Republicans feverishly seeking your votes and consider the following.
Why, in 12 years of a Republican-controlled Congress (1994-2006), 6 of which with a supposedly pro-life Republican President (2001-2007), has no human life amendment to outlaw abortion come up for a vote? Could it be that the GOP may have some motivating interest in keeping abortion legal indefinitely as an issue to galvanize voters at election time, winning Republicans easy
votes?
And if you actually want to reduce abortions, you may do well to note the findings in the 2008 study by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, showing the role that economic factors have on the decision to abort, and also how addressing those factors actually reduces abortions.
maybe more could be done to solve the abortion problem by addressing the socioeconomic causes, rather than the obsession of whether to teach sex education and/or overturning Roe v. Wade.
just ask yourself this…. Would overturning Roe v. Wade really be enough to solve the poverty, under-education, and chronic unemployment rampant in the country? Are all socioeconomic problems really caused by teaching young people how to use birth control or to prevent the spread of AIDS? do you honestly believe teaching children how to protect themselves from sexual predators would erode the fiber of society?
If, after all this, you still want to vote for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin - well, then, by all means do. Freedom of conscience is an important aspect of democracy. Just remember, if you vote for creationism and abstinence only be taught in schools and plan to criminalize all birth control methods outside the rhythm method you will get teen parents.
think Bristol Palin…
thanks Brent…. it's been fun
Comment by Laura — September 15, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Now the Republicans crash the market having
crashed the economy. When all is said and
done, this will determine the election. They
lie, they hide, they cheat, they slander, they
declare holy war on social issues and in the
end, they are deadly for American workers,
as always. Because of this, Barack will win.
Comment by Brent — September 15, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Now the Democrats crash the market having
crashed the economy. When all is said and
done, this will determine the election. They
lie, they hide, they cheat, they slander, they
declare holy war on social issues and in the
end, they are deadly for American workers,
as always. Because of this, McCain will win.
There fixed it for you…
Comment by Jon Pemberton — September 15, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
#91-92 Igor,
"Melissa, no I didn't hear this list and none of it is my personal contribution."
Then who is attributing it to a radio host named Terry Anderson, and why is the person/people making a point of mentioning he's black?
"It was an insignificant error, but it was really two errors in one about the guys family."
Ahh, the operative word being "insignificant". You're making progress, Igor. I believe there may be hope for you yet.
Comment by Melissa — September 15, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Igor R. @ 16:
"Just yesterday I heard with my own ears Obama saying about Keys when he was running against him that Keys accused him of supporting kindergarten sex education. He proceded to make some jovial comments about the subject but ended "it's the right thing to do". What am I supposed to believe, Obama's denials or my own ears?"
Rosencrans @ 54:
"Obama did vote for sex education for kindergartners. And it's no secret. See the link for the bill. Obama's lying about it, and sorry Brent, you are either misinformed or you're lying about it. Here's the link."
***
Just dig yourselves in deeper and deeper, boys. Robbie boy, your link to Sweetness and Lies doesn't help you, and Igor R.'s ears only admit what his blinkered brain wants to hear.
FactCheck.org:
"It's true that the phrase 'comprehensive sex education' appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it 'medically accurate.' It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed 'comprehensive sex education' to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be 'age-appropriate' for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question…. The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape…. In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles… The [McCain campaign ad claims that] the bill was Obama's 'one accomplishment.' This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past 'go' in the Senate. So it was not an 'accomplishment' at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments." (The article proceeds to describe a few of those *actual* accomplishments.)
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
PolitiFact.com's "Truth-O-Meter" puts the "sex ed" campaign into the "Pants On Fire" category, calling it "an absurd claim about a bill that never passed."
"Carol Ronen, the now-retired state senator who sponsored the bill, said its main intent was to make sure that teenagers got information that was 'medically accurate,' a requirement that wasn't then part of the school code. A secondary effect was to expand age-appropriate sex education down to lower grades, to allow things like teaching school children to avoid sex predators, Ronen said.
"'Barack never had anything to do with it,' she said. 'This is a lot of hoopla.'
"Obama voted for the legislation in committee on a party-line vote. He was not a sponsor nor a co-sponsor, and the legislation never made it to a full Senate vote. So calling it one of his accomplishments is wrong, since it never became law and it wasn't his bill anyway. …
"The bill specifically mentions that instructional material must be age appropriate. It specifically mentions teaching children how to 'say no to unwanted sexual advances' and 'nonconsensual physical sexual contact.' The legislation was not sponsored by Obama and it didn't pass, so calling it one of his 'accomplishments' is absurd. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/712/
Washington Post's Fact Checker gave the claim 3 Pinocchios (out of 4), corresponding to "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."
"The McCain ad is wrong when it claims–in a voice dripping with sarcasm–that Obama's 'one accomplishment' in the education field was the sex education bill for kindergartners. While it is true that Obama supported the bill, he was not one of the sponsors. As far as kindergartners were concerned, the principal purpose of the bill was to make them aware of the risk of inappropriate touching and sexual predators. Other states, including California and Massachusetts, have passed similar legislation.
"Obama was more closely identified with other education legislation in the Illinois State Senate, including a 2003 bill to double the number of Chicago charter schools from 15 to 30, which he co-sponsored. On substance, Obama has attempted to tread a fine line between his opposition to vouchers and his support for greater choice for parents, including support for charter schools. In a speech in Dayton earlier this week, he proposed doubling the funding for 'responsible charter schools,' along the lines of the earlier Chicago experiment."
The WaPo Fact Checker article also notes (1) that the Education Week article that purportedly formed the basis for the McCain slime ad was "generally positive" on Obama; (2) made quotes from a Washington Post article and a Chicago Tribune op-ed appear as if they came from Education Week, and (3) ignored the WaPo editorial's criticism of McCain for "failing to come up with a detailed education plan."
voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/mccain_attacks_on_education.html
The New York Times's Check Point series on the ad:
"In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators….
"It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, 'medically accurate' education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.
"The advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by 'comprehensive.' The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.
"In another part of the advertisement, Mr. McCain maintains that Mr. Obama’s sole achievement in education was the sex-education bill. In reality, Mr. Obama not only helped administer a $49 million education project in Chicago in the 1990s, but also sponsored or co-sponsored measures that increased the number of charter schools in Illinois, and expanded federal grants to summer school programs and to historically black colleges.
"As support for its contention that Mr. Obama is 'wrong on education,' Mr. McCain’s advertisement cited criticism by Education Week, a trade publication. Mr. Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education” in his years in the Senate in Illinois and Washington, the advertisement asserts….
"The SAME PUBLICATION has also criticized Mr. McCain, in language that was perhaps even STRONGER. Early this year, in an article titled 'John McCain Where Art Thou?' it complained that he offered 'a laundry list of fairly vague answers' on how to improve schools and did not make education a priority."
–"Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?_r=1 (emphasis added)
Oh, btw, thanks to Melissa @69 for proving that Igor R's list of Obama "lies" is itself a lie. Par for the course. Notice that in Igor @ 66's "list of lies" there's not a single piece of documentation to demonstrate whether or not he actually said what the list claims he said. What's amusing is that these wingnuts have to first make up things that Obama supposedly said (but never actually did), or turn what he actually said into straw-man caricatures, before they can even begin to claim he "lied" about something.
Like I've already said, there are liars, damn liars, and then there's Robert Rosencrans and Igor R. Truth is irrelevant to them, just as it is irrelevant to the McCain campaign. Any normal human beings, with functioning consciences, would be ashamed of such lies. Needless to say, that isn't the case here.
More info in the next post.
Comment by Jim — September 15, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
More info, as promised, responding to Igor R. @ 16 and Rosencrans @ 54.
David Brody, on the website for THE CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK (that's right, Pat Robertson's outfit, where Brody is a senior national correspondent), in July 2007, when the "sex ed for kindergarteners" shtick was raised by Mitt Romney, after having first raised by wingnut Alan Keyes in 2004:
"So, at this point at least, what Obama is referring to is teaching five year olds about inappropriate touching. The Obama campaign also tells The Brody File that parents would be able to opt out. As for further details, the touching aspect seems to be the main idea here. Obama doesn't want to hand out condoms to five year olds. He doesn't want cucumber demonstrations as part of show and tell. The legitimate reasonable discussion here is whether the federal government and/or local school boards should get involved in providing these five year olds information about inappropriate touching or should it be left up to families only….
"I must say that Romney's comments suggesting that Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergarteners is a little misleading. Because he didn't put in the proper context, many in the audience probably left thinking that Obama is ok with the condoms and cucumber approach."
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx (19 July 2007)
On the "sex ed" ad in the current cycle, Brody writes:
"Let me just give it to you straight. The McCain campaign is not being totally honest here. Obama wants 'age-appropriate' sex education taught to kindergartners. That doesn't mean he wants them to learn about sex.
The line where the announcer says, 'Learning about sex before learning to read?' is simply not true."
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/441537.aspx (10 Sept. 2008)
Steve Chapman, the conservative Chicago Tribune columnist whose July 20 OP-ED COLUMN (note: not a Trib editorial, and certainly not an article) provided the "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly" quote that the McCain ad falsely attributed to Education Week, noted in his column from YESTERDAY: "To McCain, the truth is expendable."
(Please note: Chapman's July 20 op-ed was indeed highly critical of Obama. So Chapman can't be tarred as an Obama partisan.)
First, regarding the "lipstick on a pig" flap, and after noting that McCain himself last year in response to the question about candidate Hillary Clinton "How do we beat the bitch?" responded "That's an excellent question," said of the "lipstick on a pig" shtick: "In this interpretation of Obama's remarks, the McCain people are—what's the word I'm looking for?—lying. They pretend to be unaware of the clear meaning of this old cliche, and the pretense is completely phony."
After demolishing that one, Chapman continues: "Take Palin's claim to have opposed the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere.' Long after it was exposed as false, she kept making it. The assumption behind the McCain strategy is that truth is irrelevant."
And then he moves on to the "sex ed for kindergarteners" claim:
"Last week, he released a TV spot on education studded with falsehoods. It quoted the Chicago Tribune calling Obama a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' But the Tribune didn't say it. I did, in a signed column in the Tribune, which praised McCain's support for school vouchers for low-income families.
"The ad couldn't be bothered explaining why Obama is wrong about vouchers. Instead, it said his 'one accomplishment' was a bill mandating sex education for kindergartners. 'Learning about sex before learning to read?' asked the narrator, implying that 5-year-olds would be taught the proper use of condoms before being taught their ABCs. Which, as it happens, is not true.
"McCain may be the only candidate who has ever gotten in trouble with FactCheck.org for quoting FactCheck.org."
–Steve Chapman, "To McCain, the truth is expendable", Chicago Tribune, 14 September 2008, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0914chapmansep14,0,4287762.column
But Chapman's not done. He continues:
"Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Obama: He's wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform.
"But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.
"He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul."
(Ibid.)
Note that Chapman's resume includes writing for American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, Reason, and National Review, and a post as a fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Let's repeat that last line of his: "What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul."
Like I said before: Liars, damn liars, and then there's Rosencrans and Igor R. And John McCain. Conservative columnists from the Trib, and the Christian Broadcasting Network's senior national correspondent would seem to agree.
Last question: Why exactly do John McCain, Igor R., and Robert Rosencrans oppose efforts to kindergarteners how to spot, avoid, and protect themselves from sexual predators?
Comment by Jim — September 15, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Jim, you're a bit testy, ha? "functioning consciences", "ashamed of such lies": kinda melodramatic. Let me suggest something: "there are no words in the English language to describe the depravity of these sociopaths". There, that should about cover it. If and when your Marxist comes to power, you can also outlaw free speech.
This is the clip that I heard on the radio:
"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
except for the part staring with "Obama contnued". I reported what I heard. I don't lie, for your information. When Melissa or anybody else asks me a simple question they will get a simple answer, whether it supports my interest, my assertions, my credibility or not.
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
To summarize my previous two posts:
Igor R. claimed he "heard with his own ears" that Obama supported "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners.
Rosencrans found a website that claimed essentially the same thing, based on cherry-picked quotes from the bill.
FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, the WaPo Fact Checker, and the NYT Check Point column, have ALL smacked down this McCain-Palin lie.
They have been joined by conservative columnists and the Christian Broadcasting Network's own senior national correspondent in smacking this lie down.
Steve Chapman, conservative columnist at the Chicago Tribune, said that the McCain sex-ed spot was "studded with falsehoods" and that "McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe," noting that, to the McCain camp, "truth is irrelevant."
Chapman concludes, once again, with: "What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul."
One wonders, faced with all this damning evidence, and their continued lying in the face of it, what has happened to the souls of Igor R. and Robert Rosencrans.
Comment by Jim — September 15, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
# 100 Brent
Marie Antoinette was put to death for treason.
I hope you were not implying your buddy Obama is treasonous.
Try Forest Gump: Life will be like a box a choc'lits — ya just neva know what yer gunna git" … if you vote for Obama… LOL — It is much closer to the truth. : )
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 15, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Major news on the lie front. Monday morning
sun arose, and Sarah Palin is still lying
about how she stopped the bridge to nowhere.
The lie continues, this is incredible, now
the media is reporting it's a lie. Big mistake
with hubris that will backfire. Also my
column is up on the site, under my name in
the columnist section, in the paper tomorrow
taking the lie case to the people, and the
members of Congress! Tell me what you think.
Comment by Brent — September 15, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Brent
AB Stoddard provided a "link" to her column the other day… Maybe more people wd read yours' if you did the same.
Shame on me, I am fraternizing w/ the enemy…
Also, Palin first supported the bridge to nowhere, then 86′d the idea… Kindly stop calling her a liar.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 15, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Jim, I've already been compared to the devil in very vivid, descriptive terms a week or so ago. As an atheist, I don't worry about my soul, and I suggest you shouldn't either.
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Brent, I think you don't want Palin's ticket to win.
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
JFK-HRC, it's hard to tell if Obama is more like Forest Gump or Chancey Gardner. Obama could run like the wind, in elections, and make meaningless predictions just like ol' Chance's "Yes! There will be growth in the spring!" that everybody thought were profound. It's winding up like "Gone with the Wind" though and the public is about to say "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn."
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
How the democrats caused the meltdown:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Brent
I just finished reading your column on The Hill dated 9-15-08, entitled: "Bill Clinton's Moment"
Brent, I even printed it out. I was preping for a beating with the gloves off. What happened, you didn't even pull a Tyson and nip a little ear.
Brent, That-dog-don't-hunt…
Brent, Where's the beef?
The nuclear news is this:
* Clinton inherited a great economy from Bush Sr. - then- during his reign the dot-coms died, so did a lot of investors. (Don't get me wron-I like Bill.)
* Did you read the curriculum on the sex ed for kindergarteners? Talk about TMI ! It's more suited for 8th graders and up.
* "Taxes" is Obama's second middle name. BHTO
* I don't know - I just don't see any "fight" here. McCain will take care of you and yours, no worry.
* The tide that lifts all boats… Vote for Obama and you'll be on a slow boat to China…
Vote for McCain-Palin
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 15, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
JFK-HRC, it's easier to convince Obama to vote for McCain-Palin than Brent. Brent is very loyal. He read "The Grapes of Wrath" back in the day and learned how America always has been and would be until the day that Soc.ialism is triumphant. Now he can taste it, he can smell it, he can even see it when he closes his eyes. The man has another 7 weeks of hope left plus however long it takes for all the challenges to get settled. Soup kitchen dreams and commune promises!
Comment by Igor R. — September 16, 2008 @ 12:29 am
Igor R. @ 113:
Your response is most revealing, although undoubtedly in ways that you neither intended nor want. We'll take it point by point.
"Jim, you're a bit testy, ha?"
Um, guilty as charged. When people promote scurrilous and demonstrable lies, especially after a thorough debunking, yeah, I get testy. I realize that when the truth is irrelevant to you, it's hard to imagine people getting testy over demonstrable lies, but what can I say?
What I will say, of course, is that when confronted with evidence of your lies, you tried to change the subject to my emotional state. Nice avoidance maneuver, but it ain't gonna work.
"'functioning consciences', 'ashamed of such lies': kinda melodramatic. Let me suggest something: 'there are no words in the English language to describe the depravity of these sociopaths'."
You said it, not me. I'm still looking for evidence of a conscience. I've demonstrated, with ample evidence, from nonpartisan organizations (FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com), fact-checking branches of the press (WaPo Fact Checker, NYT Check Point), and conservative commentators and reporters (Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, hardly an Obama partisan, and David Brody of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network).
A quick note about Chapman — as I noted, he's no Obama partisan. In fact, in the column to which I linked, and which I quoted, he said, "[Obama]'s wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform." He's criticized Obama, and praised McCain, repeatedly, in his columns. I've given you the link and the page there contains a link to his recent columns. They're there for anyone to read — including you, Igor.
So when someone like Steve Chapman continues, in the same column, with "But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe. He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul", — most people would consider that pretty damning evidence, wouldn't you say?
Confronted with that kind and quantity of evidence, someone with a functioning conscience, and a mind that even had a teeny crack of openness in it, might have said, "Hmm, maybe I was wrong. Whether I was wrong or not, this looks like something I should take a closer look at, and perhaps respond to in the comments."
You could have done that. But you didn't. You did not so much as ACKNOWLEDGE the evidence I presented — with quotes and links to the full stories. Not a shred of it. You thought that by stomping your feet, closing your eyes, and plugging your ears, maybe we wouldn't notice that it was there. Or maybe you were trying to wish it away. Or maybe… hmm… maybe you could just change the subject.
"There, that should about cover it. If and when your Marxist comes to power, you can also outlaw free speech."
There it is! Obama's a Marxist! Let's talk about that instead! (Present some credible evidence first, and then we can talk.) And then the whopper — "you and your Marxist want to outlaw free speech."
Classic straw man argumentation. Igor, let me be the first to tell you: Unless you are under oath in a court of law, under oath before Congress, or under oath in some legal proceeding, you are free to lie as much as you feel like. And you do, quite regularly, right here on the blog. You are free to remain unashamed of those lies. You are NOT free, on the other hand, from having your lies caught and called out, here or anywhere, if there's someone around to do it. Unless, of course, you are prepared to outlaw free speech. Exposing your lies is free speech as well, of course. I'm sorry you'd rather not deal with it, but you have to, I'm afraid. In any case, you can't prevent me or anyone else from documenting and exposing your lies.
"This is the clip that I heard on the radio:
"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,' said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. 'Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).'
"'But it’s the right thing to do,' Obama continued, 'to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.'"
Ah… you *heard* it. A *clip*. On the *radio*. And that was the end of it, right? No need to go any further.
The FactCheck.org article I already linked to in my post # 111 deals with this, of course. Not that you looked it up or anything… that would require you to be pervious to facts that contradict your ideology.
"In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles:
"Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be 'age-appropriate' sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is 'age-appropriate.'
"Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation."
I guess you have a problem with teaching kindergarteners how to avoid, defend against, and report unwanted sexual advances… which, Igor boy, IS age-appropriate sex education for kindergarteners. At least, *I* think it is. You don't?
And… that debate happened FOUR YEARS AGO. Again, the meaning of "age-appropriate sex education" in this context has been documented and confirmed — by FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, the WaPo Fact Checker, the NYT Check Point, David Brody, and Steve Chapman, all of whom I've quoted and linked to. This is where half-truths and cherry-picked, decontextualized quotes are the same thing as lies. Which is what you are doing. Again, if you had a functioning conscience, you might, in the face of this evidence, at the very least acknowledged that you might have been wrong — at the VERY least, that the evidence EXISTED. You didn't. That's why you are lying.
"except for the part staring with 'Obama contnued'. I reported what I heard. I don't lie, for your information. When Melissa or anybody else asks me a simple question they will get a simple answer, whether it supports my interest, my assertions, my credibility or not."
Ah, the Robert Rosencrans tactic — "ask me a simple question and I'll give you a simple answer." You don't get to dictate how these discussions happen, Igor. I'm not asking you any questions. I'm confronting you with EVIDENCE. Evidence you can't even admit is there. All you can do is claim — baselessly — that you don't lie, when in fact it's been demonstrated, right here, that you do. And you have absolutely no shame about it.
Comment by Jim — September 16, 2008 @ 1:39 am
Hi Brent,
If ever there was an opportunity to emphasize the topic of your article, now's the time. It would be nice to see Bill out there doing a little more pitching to reinforce the idea, too.
Comment by Melissa — September 16, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Melissa, I am working on the Bill angle
behind the scenes. It is interesting to
watch some of our Republicans. Even after
we demolish the lie with facts, even after
fact checking sites demolish the lies, some
of our folks just cant let go. Even McCain
is starting to be embarrassed by his own
campaign. The ladies on The View just kicked
the stuffing out of him, and McCain looked like
a whipped puppy.
Comment by Brent — September 16, 2008 @ 10:35 am
I am amazed that even now Palin and McCain
continue lying about the bridge to nowhere.
It has been debunked everywhere, even many
conservatives are admit it, yet Palin and
McCain continue the lie. First, this shows
me an extreme character flaw that would be
very dangerous in the White House. Second,
I predict the bounce is soon completely gone
and this issue does Palin and McCain far more
harm than they realize.
Comment by Brent — September 16, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
#123 Igor
I here ya… Too funny : )
No harm trying to convert BRENT to live out the next 50 years with a heart filled with goodness, happiness, and McCainess !
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 16, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Jim, OK, age-appropriate, age-appropriate. Yes, that's what he said. He had good intentions. He only wanted to help kids, yes, yes, I didn't say he didn't. I said I heard he said it's the right thing to do. And he did. But he qualified it. OK? I didn't lie. I didn't misstate anything. I don't know what you are trying to prove.
Comment by Igor R. — September 16, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
JFK-HRC, no harm at all. Plus I feel kinda sad for his emotional state when Obama loses. Brent is SO hopeful, SO invigorated, almost like McCain after he picked Palin!
Comment by Igor R. — September 16, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
131 Igor
I feel kinda bad for Brent too…
The higher you climb the harder you fall… it's a dang shame. If only he would open the pragmatic side of his sensitivities and intelllect. So many Dems have been in this trance-like stuper of over a year now… It is like they have succumbed to an addiction. They all need serous de-briefing.
Brent, Brent, hello, come down here where the people are real… Join the Party, even if you are a Dem, like me… you will be welcomed with open arms. ( Yew, now I am sounding like Olberman. )
The Democratic party is so fragmented, do you really think they will get anything accomplished with Obama in the White House? Of course not!
Suggested reading:
9-15-08 Washington Post yesterday's article titled:
" Records show McCain more Bipartisan", by Steven Dinan.
Fair warniing to Dems: RUN don't walk over to McCain - Palin. You'll be glad you did…
Remember one thing:
Actions speak louder than words.
McCain-Palin are the Action Candidates…
Brent, please read it if you get a chance.
Thanks !
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 16, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Hi Brent,
Hope you're having some luck on the Bill front. Even some of our well-known conservative friends have had to concede in the past 48 hours on quite a few points. McCain and Palin are about to see a downward spiral, especially as we head into the debates. I'll bring the popcorn.
Comment by Melissa — September 16, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Reaching Critical Mass [Victor Davis Hanson]
The sudden change in the polls the last 10 days, even though it may be temporary, has prompted a furor in the media that has no parallel in modern election history. Vicious words like "treason", "abasement", "liar", and "lying" are in the air now in an unheralded attack on McCain, often in association with the sex education ad, and the lipstick identification with Palin as a pig. (cf. e.g., Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen today). But as Byron York has shown, that ad alleging that Obama supported detailed information about matters of sex to be disseminated to younger children (for a variety of educational reasons), while tough and unnecessary, was nevertheless not a lie.
And as far as the silly lipstick moment, if one studies the tape carefully as Obama lets go with his similes, it is clear that the hooting audience at least seemed to make the association with Palin, and the further elaboration on a stinky old fish seemed to cement the allusion to McCain.
What otherwise are we to think of this silly controversy?— (a) a candidate is complaining about McCain and Palin; (b) in his exasperation the candidate next uses two metaphors (not 1, not 3) — (c) one to a pig with lipstick (after Palin had famously just used a lipstick/animal metaphor in her speech), and (d) a second one to an old fish — a theme of the Obama campaigning has been to suggest McCain is "losing his bearings", "confused", has "lost track", and "couldn't remember."
Comment by Igor R. — September 16, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
The lie with the most fire power is the Kindergarten Sex Ed! This one is sooo just beyond the pale. People are just stupid enough to believe this one. These kinds of ed programs are very much needed as parents just can't belive the fact that this behavior is getting worst!
Comment by Marsha T — September 16, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
#133 Igor
Good find. Another gem by the WP. Excellent!
I agree w/ that article 110%
I would add that upon studying the reaction to the Oqama-pig/lipstick remark… that when the crowd roared out in laughter, his mind froze in lock position.
Most people would tend to go along w/ the crowd, and not remain stone-faced. That was not an authentic reaction. The crowds' reaction was authentic. I agree made the link with Palin's Lipstick-pitbull joke.
I personally did not see the comment about the old-fish but was said to follow the lipstick remark by Obama.
What else could a witness surmise but an intentional slight on to the honorable Sen. John McCain and Gov PALin.
Anyone who disagrees - Don't forget about Judgement Day… It's right around the corner…
P.S. Igor, Is there a way to provide a link from the WP - so it could be easier to help educate our fellow bloggers? I tried - but - was unable to figure it out with my referenced WP article in # 131.
Thanks in advance.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 16, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
#133 Have you been asleep for the past few days, Igor? We're not wasting any more time with non sequiturs. We're talking about the economy–something McCain admittedly doesn't know about. As much as you may want to redirect the discussion back to lipstick, the American people are far too concerned about real issues in these troubled times.
Friendly tip: Talk about lipstick is always welcomed at the Vogue discussion forum.
Comment by Melissa — September 16, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
CORRECTION:
Wrong paper was cited in # 131
Correct paper:
'Washington Times'
Read the article dated 9-15-08:
"RECORDS SHOW MCCAIN MORE BIPARTISAN" by Stephen Dinan
Apologies for any inconvenience.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 16, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
#133
Poor Victor Davis Hanson. Poor Igor R.
When even KARL ROVE starts to notice — and talk about — the fact that the McCain campaign are world-champion serial liars, you know that the campaign has truly jumped the lie shark.
Ditto when Fox News starts calling out McCain lies.
And that's what's happened. The McCain-Palin camp lies have been so brazen, so repetitive, so in your face, so defiant, so numerous, so egregious, and so transparent that even the normally compliant press (whom McCain famously called his "base") have been forced to take note.
And that's truly an accomplishment. Congratulations, Steve Schmidt. Congratulations, McCain-Palin. You've even grossed Karl Rove out.
Comment by Jim — September 16, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
Notice the epidemic of lying spreads to Wall
Street in this latest fiasco with AIG. Even
CNBC is using the "l" word today. This is
a hallmark of the Bush Years, the new Age
of Lying that permeates business, politics
and media. The bailout was necessary but
there is going to be an angry political
backlash that working class American are
going to have to pay for these lies and this
slime. Watch for the Age of Lying theme
to go front page. Candidly, I am not always
right but I was one of the first to raise
this issue publicly in the paper and on the
blog. Now the lying hits the pocketbooks.
ps on another subject it was dumber than hell
for Barack to do the Hollywood gliteratti
last night. He should have phoned in his
greeting from a blue collar state fighting
for working people. What can I say? That
is what I believe and I am not one of these
talking point posting pundits who will never
criticize their own party and I am not one
of these pundits who make laughable and
ludicrous predictions at this stage of the
campaign.
Comment by Brent — September 17, 2008 @ 7:33 am
#139 Brent
It is my understanding that Gov Paterson of NY, proposed that NY to bail out the AIG ins. co., and not with tax-payer dollars.
Instead the U.S. Gov. did the deal. And it sounds like they did a similar deal, I might add.
Two year loan at a generous interest rate? The government stands to profit a handsome amount of money, while saving jobs. It is a win - win for all.
The alternative would be, let the company fall, put a lot of people out on unemployment, (which would likely add to the housing crisis w/ additional forclosures), and let's think about the businesses that depend on AIG's insurance for their operations. If you know how the business world works, the customers of venders from all the various industries want proof the businesses are insured.
Don't miss the forest for the trees!
I appreciate Gov Patterson from NY who saw a fantastic opportunity. I am so very happy the U.S. gov. stepped up before some other foreign company bought out AIG.
This was an excellent financial decision.
Gov Patterson, a Dem, was not in favor of Obama decision to kick HRC to the curb as VP.
So Brent, I trust you will help spead the truth on this, and lose the political spin.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 17, 2008 @ 8:44 am
In regard to what you call lie #7, your favorite lie of all:
What no one seems to acknowledge or even wants to hear is that the bill would pave the way for a change in the curriculum that was being taught…i.e., comprehensive sex education. How can you say it is a lie when the Obama campaign itself referred to SIECUS as a model and the SIECUS guidelines spell out in detail what is considered "age-appropriate", even for children as young as 5? No matter how you choose to vote or how much you despise the other side of the political coin, please check out the rest of the story at the SIECUS link below and read it in its entirety. Is this curriculum only about protecting young children from inappropriate touching? Is some of this information really appropriate for the age group indicated? Are the SIECUS Guidelines (the gold-standard in modern-day sex education) not a model for comprehensive sex education? If it were YOUR child in the Illinois school system, how would you want your Senator to vote?
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf
Comment by USAmomof4 — September 17, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
#141 USAmomof4
Thanks for that link.
I reviewed level one throughout the entire text. I really am shocked to the extent of information they want to teach children 5-8 years old about sex ed. Those standards are way too liberal for my taste. Most kids wont understand it at that level, but there is too much suggestion throughout the entire format. It is way out out of line, in most of the categories. I was taken back that at age 9 (level 2) they are actually educating these kids about abortion… It is so wrong to instill abortion in kids at that age. It almost grooms the children to accept Abortion at age 9, as casually as a 9 year old would accept that some people like vanilla and some like chocolate.
If Obama believe this is good for the kids, Obama needs a checkup from the neck up.
I believe prevention is the best medicine, but at this level it is too much.
I hope everyone links to the above writers LINK on the sex ed guidelines !!
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 17, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
JFK-HRC, I just stick the URL into the post, and generally it works. I know that some links are filtered here, perhaps for copyright reasons, or whatever. Not sure what else can be done but just posting the URL.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Melissa, this is the old "lie" thread, I was just trying to address the original topic.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
JFK-HRC, I think what's age-appropriate at that age is "if someone touches you other than here or here tell your mom and dad". I don't think we need Obama sponsoring bills to deal with this "issue". The libs will argue anything to prove their wicked point of view. I'm sure man-boy love association argues for "age-appropriate" contact between men and boys.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
#141 The Illinois bill does not mention anything about SIECUS as a guideline. That would be up to the individual school districts who may or may not use SIECUS as a guideline for what is "age-appropriate". Furthermore, the bill explicitly states that any parent may opt his/her child(ren) out of the said education, and schools must provide ample opportunity for parents to review all curriculum and instructional materials in advance.
No wonder Rev. Debra Haffner, one of the former presidents of SIECUS, finds the recent uproar so outrageous.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/yes-sex-education-in-kind_b_126899.html
Comment by Melissa — September 17, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
#144 I'm aware of the original topic. But since then, there've been bigger fish to fry…..as the saying goes.
Comment by Melissa — September 17, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
#141 Melissa
Can you tell us if Obama has ever reference the Siecus curriculum or if he has ever read it.
If not - what curriculum would he recommend and is there a link to read it.
I read the Siecus curriculum, and I can not believe that any Christian group would accept that curriculum for little kids. I would be leary of any teachers who would go that deeply into the subject matter, for Lev 1 or Lev 2.
Opting out of the recommended programs is rarely exercised by parents. Many are less educated and go along with the school's programs, and others are just too intimidated to speak up, fearing backlash.
This program is going way against the standards and values most parents would expect.
If the public reads it - they would be disgusted, 142 pgs. I find it hard to believe the REV D. Haffner ever read it herself, unless the above link located in #141's link is a joke or just plain bogus.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 17, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
#145 Igo
You couldn't be more correct.
I am disgusted. I feel sorry for young parents today. Strangers should not be teaching that stuff and influencing the children on the wierd unorthodox ways of society, abortions, etc… until they hit jr. high or highschool… in Health or biology, sociology classes…
I base my opinion on the link provided in #141.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 17, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
#148 For the sake of argument, I'll assume Obama's an ardent supporter of SIECUS. There's still a huge problem with the logic:
A=Obama
B=Legislation for sex ed
C=SIECUS
If A supports B
And A supports C
Then B must support C
It simply doesn't wash. Obama didn't sponsor the bill, and there is no mention of SIECUS in the legislation. Not a one. Why? Because the determination of what qualifies as "age-appropriate" is determined at the local level and not in the legislature.
Coincidentally, Obama's explanation in 2004 for supporting the legislation was this:
"We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation." (Source: FactCheck.org)
Comment by Melissa — September 18, 2008 @ 12:32 am
JFK-HRC, I think liberals use sex education the same way they use history or government classes or any religious studies: to promote their point of view. I've never heard a liberal advocate "gun education" because you know you just can never predict when you'll be in a situation where you need to shoot someone, even though of course, of course they do not approve of shooting people. They know that teaching sex education promotes acquiescence of teenage sex while they happily pretend that they are simply trying to alleviate the consequences of a societal phenomenon they've had nothing to do with.
Comment by Igor R. — September 18, 2008 @ 2:06 am
#150 Melissa
The abvuse section of the Siecus curriculum was the part of the program that made sense. But many of the other sections designed for kids in lev 1 (5-8 y.o.) and lev 2 (9-12 y.o., were out of bounds.
The question is what curruculum Obama recommending, and what curriculum is the legislature recommending, since this is mandated.
Also, if we think logically, what mother in the U.S. doesn't tell their children to not speak to strangers, and …"don't touch"…
C'mon.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 18, 2008 @ 8:52 am
There is now a huge turn in the campaign
because of the exposure of the McCain-Palin
lies that are now universally recognized
coupled with the huge financial crisis and
public backlash. The Republican bounce is
dead. Barack is probably slightly ahead
and on a good curve with an issue advantage
going into the debates. Palin helps with the
hard right base but now is starting to hurt
with swing voters seriously concerned about
the economy and angry. I am still laughing
at AB Stoddard's election prediction for
McCain. It is ridiculous and laughable to
make any predictions right now. This is a
50-50 race with the nominal advantage shifting
back and forth, to McCain after the convention
and to Obama after the crash.
Comment by Brent — September 18, 2008 @ 9:48 am
#151 LOL The problem with your argument is that owning/using a gun is a matter of choice; sexuality is inherent. Sex ed encompasses far more than what you are acknowledging, too.
#152 Again, I'm not looking at the SIECUS curriculum since there is nothing that connects the legislation in question to that curriculum. The legislature does not recommend curriculum. That is a decision for the state's DOE to recommend and for local districts to decide–not the legislature. Unless Obama is the head of his state's DOE, which would be a breaking news story, then his opinion is of little relevance to this discussion beyond his explanation for supporting the said legislation.
And no, I don't consider it logical to assume that parents teach or don't teach their children anything.
Comment by Melissa — September 18, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Melissa, I know, if you ask Bill Clinton sexuality is not a matter of choice, it's wherever the little Bubba will take him.
Comment by Igor R. — September 18, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Oh my, Igor…. (Refraining from further response)
Comment by Melissa — September 18, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
# 151
Just check it out. How can you make an intelligent arguement with some standard to compare.
It is probably my fault, I assumed you already read the document.
I think most people would be taken back at the libral perspective the curriculum takes.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 18, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
It wasn't a lie after all:
http://thehill.com/byron-york/you-sir-are-a–short-sighted-idiot-2008-09-18.html
Comment by Igor R. — September 18, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
#157 I didn't look at it because it's a moot point. The original argument pertained to legislation Obama supported, and I've demonstrated that SIECUS had nothing to do with the said legislation and vice versa.
In light of the fact that sex ed curriculum is often determined by individual school districts or loosely defined at the state level (i.e. zero uniformity), I really don't see any reason to dissect SIECUS curriculum. To the best of my knowledge it is considered a model and not a mandate.
Comment by Melissa — September 18, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
#158 From your link:
“The bill also specified that ‘all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior … be age and developmentally appropriate.’ ”
There are those darned words "age" and "appropriate" again.
Comment by Melissa — September 18, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
#160
You have not demonstrated a thing. Don't bother reading the document, of you are to lazy to.
I bet if someone tried to censure it - you would be all over it like a fly on honey.
Your loss.
I hope other's (doer's not talker's) take the time to link to it so they can see how offensive that curriculum is for little kids. Anyone interested in examining the controvercial teaching tool about sex ed to kids in grades K-12 check link on # 141.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 19, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Yes Melissa "age" and "appropriate" and yet the conclusion is that the commercial is not a lie.
Comment by Igor R. — September 19, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
#161 Lazy? My oh my, aren't we getting a bit judgmental? Perhaps you should take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself what qualifies you to judge somebody you don't even know.
Comment by Melissa — September 19, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
163: Melissa
How can you judge a document you refuse to read?
No personal offense was meant.
Just link to it so we can have an intelligent conversation about it.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 19, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
#162 Bzzt! Wrong again, Igor.
1. The ad falsely claimed the legislation was Obama's big accomplishment in education. Not only was the legislation not "his", but he has several REAL accomplishments in education. According to Fact Check, those are: cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren't U.S. citizens, and sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007.
2. The ad falsely claimed the legislation was aimed to teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergarteners. The legislation was not limited to kindergarteners, but it WAS limited to age-appropriate materials for all students grades K through 12.
Comment by Melissa — September 20, 2008 @ 12:01 am
#164 I haven't read it, and I have never attempted to judge it. I stand by my original assertion that trying to tie it to the legislation in question is both illogical and implausible based on the reasons I've provided. Beyond that, I have no interest in discussing it.
Comment by Melissa — September 20, 2008 @ 12:13 am
Melissa, I don't know much about these details, but on a tangential note being "cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren't U.S. citizens" just makes me sick to my stomach.
Comment by Igor R. — September 21, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
#167 I'd offer to send you some Rolaids, but you don't seem to appreciate when I demonstrate compassion. LOL
The fact is that you are in a teeny weeny minority, Igor. The Illinois Senate voted in favor 55-1-1, and the House voted in favor 112-4-1.
Comment by Melissa — September 22, 2008 @ 12:02 am
#166 Melissa
You are fired…
Pick up your pink slip at the door.
Comment by JFK-HRC — September 23, 2008 @ 5:55 pm