By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Still Saying No
10 days in Toronto without the talking head channels has kept my interest in the election at bay. Watched Palin with Charlie Gibson last night, though I thought it was very generous of ABC not to show the handler throwing the fish in her mouth after she evaded most questions with “but look over there.” Anyone who has accused Obama of not being specific – in spite of tons of detail on most positions available from his campaign website – should be forced to watch Palin’s answer to the question of what makes her and McCain’s economic plans differ from Bush’s… even her platitudes were off subject.
That said, I am pleased to see that people of conscience – left, right, and center – are beginning to call the lies out in no uncertain terms. Of course, the spin will be that the truth is just “complaining” from “them”… the ever-present “them” that wants to throw older, white people out of their perfect homes only to replace them with boom box carrying junkies who fornicate on the front lawn and get all uppity about equal rights for women, homosexuals, other ethnicities, and those evil foreigners… ALL of them evil foreigners!
The truth is, for me, my positive feelings about Obama and what he stands for have become completely secondary to my sad, disappointed anger and fear about John McCain and the depths to which he has sunk. After eight years of fighting with fellow Democrats about Bush not being the anti-Christ, suddenly I find myself seeing analogies to John McCain in TIFF movies about fascists of the past.
Really… not kidding.
People allow themselves to be conned on this planet every day. And I am not talking about the political con of George Bush, calling himself a “compassionate conservative” while throwing money at big business, claiming it will built the economy, while under-regulation (like Clinton’s failure to get control of the internet boom before it busted) left us with a problem economy, including record-breaking deficits. THAT, I expect. That is par for the course. That is America making a choice and not thinking too much.
I’m talking about outright lies meant to divide and force the election discussion to be about who you are comfortable with and not about the future of the American government. I can actually live with Sarah Palin spinning her anti-choice position as somehow “personal,” suggesting seconds after saying Roe v Wade should be dumped, that the “personal” is not the political. That is traditional election year bullshit.
But the endless, outright lies…
And sad to say… once again, a Clinton has led the way.
Bill Clinton destroyed the feminist movement by having a sexual tryst that by every standard that the mainstream feminist movement had maintained about workplace behavior would have seen him fired from any CEO job in America… and then letting the feminists defend him against the “vast right wing conspiracy.” That was the end. The standard could no longer be held because it was abandoned for political expediency.
Likewise, Hillary’s desperate – much more desperate than McCain, given the virtual impossibility of coming back from Obama’s pre-PA lead – mudslinging at Obama has become the standard for McCain because… taa-dah… it worked. She still couldn’t win. But she wounded him and the party with him. And now that Sarah Palin is pretending to be a woman of Hillary’ substance – and even as a bit of a Hillary basher, I can see that she is objectively far more qualified than Palin – where is Hillary Clinton, speaking out against Palin? Why is she not taking on this battle when she is the best person to do it?
She should just say no to Palin… and if she wants to be well remembered, she will.
Like I said before, the election will be determined by the debates. When the public sees them side by side. That’s what always seems to happen.
Oh right, I forgot. If Obama blows it, it’s Hillary’s fault.
Bush lost the debates in 2000, but the spin was “he could have done so much worse.” Still didn’t keep the smirking rich frat boy from getting elected, did it?
Bush lost the debates in 2000, but the spin was “he could have done so much worse.” Still didn’t keep the smirking rich frat boy from getting elected, did it?
Rob, grow the fuck up or stop posting if you can’t follow the logic instead of taking naa naa naa na naaa naaa school yard pot shots. You want to argue that Clinton’s campaign didn’t show the way, fine.
Bush won the debates in 2000. Not on content. But on personality.
Just like JFK/Nixon. The media all claimed Gore blew Bush away. Then the polls started coming in and to everybody’s surprise, the viewers preferred Bush.
Then Bush’s team started jumping on Gore’s huffs and snickers, claiming he was arrogant. They made such a big deal, Gore was asked about it during the next debate by Lehrer (I think), and he apologized. He died right there.
Same thing in 1992, when Bush, Sr. was caught looking at his watch.
Debates aren’t about content. They’re about personality and charisma.
“Anyone who has accused Obama of not being specific – in spite of tons of detail on most positions available from his campaign website.”
You still don’t know how ridiculous this sounds. Comparing Obama’s website to Palin’s interview? Nice.
“Debates aren’t about content. They’re about personality and charisma.”
“Checkmate,” Obama replied.
I have to add to the assertion that Obama has specifics. In my view, that’s never been the issue. Obama absolutely has explict plans. The issue is that he, like his political brothers and sisters, don’t articulate them because, to this point, the American people still balk at explicitly-stated socialism. Progressives continue to campaign as moderates, while conseratives campaign as conservates. Obama will continue to couch his rhetoric in ideals like “self-reliance” and “responsibility”, but his policies will continue to be founded in cradle-to-grave entitlements and a burgeoning Nanny State, with European socialism as his model.
The fact that many of you will recoil at my use of the “s” word proves that you know its still a dirty word in the U.S. The Democrat Party knows it, too.
What is the solution then mystery? Cause Republican leadership these last eight years has been atrocious and disgraceful. They are not the party of small government anymore no matter what they claim.
Right, Mystery. Imagine a country actually offering public services to its own citizens! My God! Why…it’s just like…America! You moron.
Every successful civilized country offers social services. Even the USA. And many of them, instituted by FDR and LBJ made this country a better, more equal place.
On the other hand, via the Right, we experimented with lese fair capitalism. That only resulted in The Great Depression. And, more recently, the Right has been at it again, so ideologically opposed to anything existing that’s not run for pure profit that they’re going to bankrupt the country. The Democrats didn’t create the $10-trillion debt. The GOP under Reagan/Bush/Bush did. And they did it intentionally.
Any halfway competent candidate who’s running against Obama is going to bring up his relatively light resume. So I don’t really see how McCain is following Hillary’s lead, per se. And it’s not as if the Clintons invented mudslinging. Obama could probably stand to follow their lead a bit at this point.
>The Democrat Party
Showing your partisan, Rovian colors, aren’t you, mystery? That’s Democratic Party.
After riding a 5-point lead for a chunk of this past week as his bounce, McCain has lost one point each day for the past 3 days taking him down to 2.
Socialist… bullshit.
This is a centrist country and the last president who had any real ideology was Reagan… and the only reason his trickle-down destruction of the economy isn’t reviled is that he got lucky and the Internet boom ate the economy whole. His deficits were very much like Bush’s, in that economic era, except he didn’t add a trillion with a major war.
The majority of this country wants what Obama wants… they just don’t want to pay for it. (The exception is off-shore drillng, which has been mythologized by lies and oxymoronic combinations of ideas like drilling and becoming energy independent.
No president can turn the economy… but they can push buttons about who (read my lips) will pay the biggest part of the bills.
The idea of hands-off government is a lie on both sides, as Dems want to force open-mindedness and Reps want to tell everyone what to do with their private parts and merge curb and state.
Everyone wants peace… no one wants a draft… but one party seems to enjoy believing in America as an unassailable island while the other understands that we are unavoidably in a world community.
None of this is funny. None of this is about dick size. We are a nation facing a major sophomore slump. So do you want to be the nation that commands respect or demands respect?
Who doesn’t love socialism? Oh I remember. Those idiots out there who believe they are offered one of the best social contracts of any citizens on the planet. Bollocks.
This country can do better. It has always had the chance to DO BETTER, but we tend to bow to our corporate overlords. Who seemingly prefer us to go down this shitty path, then actually help people.
Luckily for us: this happened roughly the same time 100 years ago, and the government gave the overloards a good rogering up the ass. So I look forward to a president that lets the government off the leash, points them at the corporate assholes in this country, and says; “SICK’EM AND LEAVE NOTHING LEFT!”
Yay, is it time to bash Hilary for Obama’s downfall?
Yes, David, take a different tact. You can’t demonize Hillary then demand she be responsible for Obama. He shoulda picked her as VP. Then, no Palin.
If he picked her for VP. There would be no need for Palin. Thanks in large part to Hillary being the tool the RNC used to bring Obama down.
Seriously; Hillary was a bad call. Joe’s a good call. He will at least go after Palin at their debate. Hillary is walking on eggshells when it comes to Palin. So she’s not getting the job done, but it would not be the first time the Clinton’s failed the Democratic party.
Nevertheless; the polls are all lies, Palin is a ticking bomb, and everything will be fine in a few weeks. These things happen when the press finds Barack Obama’s story less interesting than Sarah Palin’s all of a sudden. Only in a America could the press forget about the man with darker skin running for president, and fixate on a woman whose about as plain and common as they come.
The tool the RNC would use to bring down Obama. KEEP READIN!
Oh yeah.. BLACK GUY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Only in this fucking country could those five words strung together seem so routine, when it’s really a rather mind-blowingly awesome situation.
Palin’s popular, but not a Magical Election-Winning Machine. If Obama had picked Hillary, McCain’s camp would have picked someone to counteract. Palin was a strategic choice. Any choice made in response to a Hillary pick would have been equally strategic and possibly just as effective. Let’s calm down about this Palin Effect until we see how it plays out.
Stella’s Boy– “What is the solution then mystery? Cause Republican leadership these last eight years has been atrocious and disgraceful. They are not the party of small government anymore no matter what they claim.”
Though “atrocious” and “disgraceful” are a mite strong for my taste, I can’t really argue with your sentiments. The solution? Clean house, I guess. Hope for better candidates.
mutinyco– “Right, Mystery. Imagine a country actually offering public services to its own citizens! My God! Why…it’s just like…America!”
Wait a second — are you saying that America is a socialist country? Obviously, the amount of government control at the crux of the matter. I don’t see where in this discussion I advocated for no public services.
York “Budd” Durden– “Showing your partisan, Rovian colors, aren’t you, mystery?”
Did that originate with Rove? I don’t know, but I like it.
David Poland– “I respectfully disagree with your assessment.”
OK, but what socialism is, and what Obama advocates, are no mysteries, and share many characteristics. Obama proposes the centralization of more services, income redistribution, etc. If it walks like a duck…
“This is a centrist country”
And Obama is a centrist? The hell he is. He is the MOST liberal senator of 2007, according to National Journal. Bernie Sanders, a self-described “democratic SOCIALIST”, is forth (Biden is third). If you’re liberal, then you should be tickled pink. You’re very close to finally having someone who represents your ideology in the White House. Americans haven’t elected a liberal President since who? FDR?
“which has been mythologized by lies and oxymoronic combinations of ideas like drilling and becoming energy independent”
Are you saying that increased domestic drilling and increased energy independence are oxymorons? Democrats are slowly backing away from this assertion. Haven’t you noticed?
I don’t think McCain/Palin represent the center any more than Obama/Biden then.
Increased domestic drilling is a bullshit gambit perfecta, and the Democrats are not backing away. It’s just apparently really hard for some people to get, that it will take YEARS for the off-shore drilling to pay off. Did I also mention that it will ruin our coastlines? Seriously; supporting off-shore drilling is beyond stupid.
Also do not get the point of your responses perfecta. You have yet to claim any side to my knowledge, but you continually pound Obama. If you are a conservrepub… state it. If not; stop riding the fence and pick a side.
“I don’t think McCain/Palin represent the center any more than Obama/Biden then.”
How so? The Obama/Biden ticket comprises two of the most far-left senators in the U.S. McCain is one of the most widely recognized aisle-crossers in the Senate.
“You have yet to claim any side to my knowledge, but you continually pound Obama.”
I’ve stated once or twice in the past– I’m conservative.
“If not; stop riding the fence and pick a side.”
I thought this was a centrist country?!?
It is centrist. It’s just that we’ve just gone through 8 years of such extreme right-wing rule that we need somebody on the left to take us back to the middle.
“Reps want to tell everyone what to do with their private parts and merge curb and state. ”
The candidate who wants to tell everyone what to do with their privates is the candidate who uses the courts and schools to force their views about what to do with your privates down kids throats.
Or are you going to tell me Obama did not say it was the “right thing to do” about teaching kindergarten students sex-ed? Really…say it’s a lie like they did on the View. The clip of him saying it is all over the net.
And Obama is no centrist. That is why he is flailing. His supporters are not centrist, that is why they are responding in anger and rage.
Dems run as moderates but get outed when their real statements hit the air and then complain they are being lied about.That is why they want to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” which is anything but.
Well, Nicol, if you’re referring to the same clip that I’ve seen, you’d have to have the brain power of a turnip to think he was actually advocating sex ed for kindergartners.
First, he’s joking that somebody else said he supported it — then, he says he believes AGE-APPROPRIATE education, science-based, is right.
He wasn’t saying that kindergarten was age-appropriate. It’s two separate thoughts.
Nicol has a brain, he’s just being profoundly dishonest in saying what he’s saying, on top of the delusions that he has trained himself to believe. If you look at the bill in question, it merely would have revised the state of Illinois’ sex ed standards.
It’s a great ad though because this phony ‘issue’ combines fear of sex and fear of black people into one big scary package (pun partially intended).
“…to force their views about what to do with your privates down kids throats.”
By the way, Nicol, nice phrase. Did you say in the past you actually had gay friends? Hard to believe.
“By the way, Nicol, nice phrase. Did you say in the past you actually had gay friends? Hard to believe.”
Shoving privates down kids throats is gay? What are YOU saying, jeff?
Oh, wait– now I’M parsing.
Do you have a link to the bill that Keyes’ asserts has a provision for teaching kindergarten kids sex ed?
While you do not have to be graphic about it. The teenage pregnancy rates in this country may drop a bit sooner. If we actually responded to sex as a natural act in this country, and made sure the kids knew how things worked.
It’s not like you have to start them off when they are five or six, but there is the internet. The world’s provider of 40% of smut on a second basis. So the kids will start to be told things at an earlier age one of these days.
It’s not like this wasn’t the act that created them or something.
This is the problem I have discussing this stuff with you, mystery… you spout the lies as fact… I don’t even blame you for it… but oy.
McCain has spent the last 8 years voting 95% with Bush… and he has moved closer to Bush since being nominated. So how is he known for crossing the aisle? Are we supposed to believe that the guy who was around over a decade ago… a man who nominated the walking punchline called Sarah Palin… is a moderate?
And by the way… Obama is still ahead where it counts… in the electoral college count. This Palin bump is not the same as McCain winning. It is, however, a very good way of distracting everyone from any real issues.
It seems to me that if anyone can see Obama as “far left” – that is a reflection of how far right we are – the dems and Obama are moderates – they are no more lefties than I am Paris Hilton.
I think this country is in very very deep trouble and I suspect part of why people do not truly understand how bad our economy is – is because most of us dont really understand much about economics and we get so little information from the media – we virtually gave our national sovereignty to the Chinese over the Fannie Mae business – because we are so dependent on them to continue to finance our debt and they got nervous about the billions they have invested in Fannie and Freddie- yet I see not a word of discussion about this – I saw Bush on TV tonight talking about sending federal aid to Texas and all I could think of was that he was gonna have to call up China Bank Ltd and find out if they would lend him the money ! Lehman is going under – AIG is shaky, Ford needs a 50 Billion dollars loan from the government and GM has announced they too will be asking for a loan – frakly – both the Repub and the Dems share the responsibility for this mess – and in the context of all this mess – we are talking about the Rep VP candidate –
This election is a battle between those who would sell you a myth (McCain Palin as regular folk who are gonna reform Washington) versus those who want to have a serious – albeit timid – discussion about issues – right now the myth guys are winning. the NY Times could reveal that Palin ate babies she cooked in her microwave for breakfast and those who are into myths would still vote for that ticket – cause the facts dont matter to them – and they dont trust the NY Times anyway.
I think SNL summed it up best when they said; “McCain is 4 points behind Palin.”
“He is the MOST liberal senator of 2007, according to National Journal. Bernie Sanders, a self-described “democratic SOCIALIST”, is forth (Biden is third).”
Isn’t it amazing how whichever Democratic senator runs for President (e.g., Gore, Kerry) is the MOST LIBERAL SENATOR? Not Kennedy or Clinton or Boxer or Harkin or Schumer or Sanders or Dodd or Feingold, but Obama! Give me a frickin’ break. You can only go to that well so many times.
Mysteryperfecta, if you go to factcheck.org they will provide information as to the truthiness of the McCain ad in question.
Also, the word is spelled ‘fourth’.
The sex bill (and I thought that by now this was common knowledge) was for age-appropriate sex ed, so kindergartners would have learned about inappropriate touching to protect themselves from sexual predators. The horror!
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
mystery if you truly believe McCain is a maverick centrist, you are just as blindly partisan as the Obamaniacs you have such a problem with. I know the McCain camp loves to make that claim but it’s just not true. David already mentioned how frequently he voted with Bush. Now he is releasing grossly misleading ads or ads that flat-out lie. The man is hardly a maverick or centrist. Palin pulls them even more to the right.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign’s factual claims: “We
Dave Poland said, “the ever-present “them” that wants to throw older, white people out of their perfect homes only to replace them with boom box carrying junkies who fornicate on the front lawn and get all uppity about equal rights for women, homosexuals, other ethnicities, and those evil foreigners… ALL of them evil foreigners!”
Mr. Poland, please. You complain about lies, and in the same post you exagerate to the point of absurdity. Who has ever said anything like that?
Coming from the guy who said Obama loves Che. Hilarious.
National Review, Townhall and the AM righties are sticking to their “evil liberal MSM out to get McCain/Palin” meme and are using that to counter any reality. No surprise. Caveat emptor.
Karl Rove is officially on the record now criticizing the inaccuracies of McCain’s ads…
This business about “most liberal” or “most conservative” is dodgy. McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time now? Last I heard it was 90%. Inflation’s brutal.
Here’s the thing. Every single candidate ever tracks toward the extremes when they’re campaigning for the party nomination, and then they track back toward the center after the conventions. So now you got Obama and McCain both de-emphasizing their extreme views. As a friend pointed out to me, Obama’s admitting the 2007 surge in Iraq worked, and McCain talking about free health care. You can be sure neither has his heart in those statements.
Meanwhile, throughout the entire process, each candidate tries to paint the other as an extremist, whether they are or aren’t. You people believing the Democratic campaign painting McCain as an extremist are profoundly ignorant of both history and reality — just as the conservatives are who keep trying to call the latest Democratic nominee the “most liberal senator,” whoever it is.
McCain voting 90% with Bush? Sounds bad. But how many of those were not votes that split along party lines at all? Take those out of the equation. Now consider that McCain broke from the party line more often any other Republican in the Senate (I think; nearly, anyway). Cosnider that McCain practically made a *name* for himself during the Bush years for being one of Bush’s biggest critics on the Republican side. Suddenly the perspective looks different.
The reality is that McCain, while certainly conservative on some big issues like the war, is, overall, a moderate candidate, and most certainly on the left side of the party line. Joe Leiberman would be his counterpart on the Democratic side.
I’m not saying this means you should vote for him. The prevailing tide on this blog is pretty strongly “two legs good, four legs baaaad,” and Obama therefore most closely represents your views.
But since we’re talking about calling out lies, lies, and more lies so aggressively, “McCain is extremely conservative” is one for the pile.
“The reality is that McCain, while certainly conservative on some big issues like the war, is, overall, a moderate candidate, and most certainly on the left side of the party line.?
Really? Are you sure about that?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24107084/
“consider that McCain broke from the party line more often any other Republican in the Senate”
Now hang on. While McCain rightfully criticized the Bush administration for being incompetent, there are many ways to determine ‘most liberal’ and ‘most conservative.’
I found a ranking from the American Conservative Union from 2007 that gave McCain a lifetime rating of 82.16, less conservative than Inhofe, DeMint, Brownback, or Craig, more conservative than Stevens, Lugar, Snowe, Coleman, or Specter.
I don’t trust a Conservative group’s rankings of ‘most liberal’ but their ranking of ‘least conservative’ has Boxer, Kennedy, Mikulski, Kerry, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Murray all lower than Obama.
“McCain is extremely conservative” is one for the pile.”
I would say his choice for VP effectively cancels out his moderation given she could become prez.
Anyway, the economy is fundamentally sound.
” McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time now? Last I heard it was 90%. Inflation’s brutal.”
It was 95% in the year 2007, and 90% over the last seven years. Not inflation, just details.
Sam…
Give me an example of someone who was a “maverick” who then fell in line with the extremists of his or her party, then governed like a “maverick.”
Just one.
McCain was someone I once would have considered voting for, even though I am admittedly likely to vote Dem every time. What Bush did to him in South Carolina was horrible.
Beyond the percentage of with-Bush votes, he has clearly handed his campaign to the neocons so he can win. And there is no turning back… so sayeth the guy lovingly watching Godfather in Blu-ray right now.
Dave-
You’re pushing hard to the hoop with your “lies” and “liar” Democrat narrative. It is ever-present in your every diatribe. But I’M the one that cited a well respected source. So you’re the hypocrite. And a coward.
Obama is a party-line Democrat. He was cited as the most liberal Senator in Congress by a well-respected source. Where are your sources, coward? Obama’s favorite example of bipartisanship is his work on a bill that passed with unanimous support (so I suppose anyone who voted can cite their bipartisanship).
I never said McCain was a centrist. Obama asserts that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time; I never disputed that. I said he is a widely recognized aisle-crosser, much to the chagrin of many conservatives. That’s a fact.
I said Obama’s views have much in common with socialism. It is an assertion. Your response? A very predictable “bullshit” charge. But little else.
So where are the lies, Dave? Be specific. Anything else is just another Poland smear.
jeffmcm- “I don’t trust a Conservative group’s rankings of ‘most liberal'”
The ranking I cited is from The National Journal, a non-partisan organization.
And I didn’t refer to it.
But you’re searching and selectively citing a partisan source, while claiming you don’t trust them.
I think it should be obvious that any single group, partisan or non, is going to provide an incomplete picture of something as complicated as arbitrary as ‘most conservative’ and ‘most liberal’. The information I cited earlier was a conservative group’s rankings of most-conservative senators, demonstrating that McCain is neither the most conservative nor the biggest maverick, which again is only one piece of a bigger pie.
This is a situation where it’s much easier to disprove an assertion than it is to prove one.
“This is a situation where it’s much easier to disprove an assertion than it is to prove one.”
True, and simple voting records won’t suffice. McCain may vote with Bush 90% of the time, but bucking one’s party/president on big ticket issues like the war, immigration, and global warming may qualify someone for the “maverick” label. One could also legitimately include campaign finance reform AND being a member of the “gang of 14”. This has all happened with the last several years.
By the way, good post, Sam. Although, it’s the National Journal that cites Obama as the most liberal Senator, as it was (coincidentally) John Kerry when he ran. I don’t know about Gore. I can’t imagine Clinton being pegged as the most liberal governor.
Sam’s post is pretty good, except that he’s off on a few points. For example, there is no Lieberman on the Republican side, as no Republicans have been defeated lately by their own party for nomination and then continued in Congress. The closest approximation is Chuck “Palin is not qualified” Hagel.
I don’t consider McCain to be an ideological extremist – that’s the whole reason why I posted a response to Sam’s posting showing that McCain was not one of the most conservative members of the Senate. But as far as I’m concerned, his actions in the last year have demonstrated a capitulation to the far-right wing of his party and the Palin choice was the last straw.