Obama accuses Republican rivals of dishonesty

“You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”

Well, maybe. But you can't ignore the fact that G. W. Bush was elected ... er ... voted in ... um ... in office for two terms. The democratic process is not always a beacon of brilliance.

Buddha4brains,

Classic. Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Taka

obama is showing his desperation. There has been up to a 20 percent swing in some polls against him and the old white guy he chose as his running mate, biden. His campaign is in a massive free fall. Mr. McCain has consistently out manuevered Team obama time and again.

Good times.

RR

You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid

Heh, appears obama's 300 advisers put up his concession speech on the teleprompter.

RR

I agree with RomeoRamenll.

Obama is making outlandish claims, he`s clutching at straws as he sees his voter base collapse.

The guy has brought about his own downfall, Good!!

I don't get the hate for Obama.

He has done nothing wrong and is fighting for the people. The only people who have something to lose are those in big business who would finally have to pay more taxes and lose Washington control. Obama's policies would benefit not only 95% of Americans, but also the world. Still, these seems to be so much hatred for Obama based on what? He's not on your team?

Still, these seems to be so much hatred for Obama based on what?

Many among the Republicans are simply hate-filled people. Look at how McCain was treated by them in South Carolina in 2000. Some may recall the doctored photograph of John Kerry and Jane Fonda back in '04, and few will forget how the Swift Boaters spit upon his honorable Vietnam record. (At least GW Bush declared that Kerry served honorably.)

If the USA gives in to the haters and fear-mongers, it will get four more years of the kind of leadership the Republicans tried to distance themselves from at their recent convention.

moonbeams, very good question. The hatred for Obama is vitriolic. The latest hate-monger to make his feelings clear was the leader of the College Republicans in Pennsylvania. He made some stupid remark about the size of Obama's lips and was forced to quit as a result.

All I can say is this: if large numbers of Americans won't vote for Obama simply because he's half-black, then the US deserves whatever bad fortune will surely befall it under McCain/Palin.

People need to wake up about Sarah Palin. To put it gently, she is an empty suit, know-nothing, Christian extremist. Government officials in Tehran, Moscow, and Pyongyang will be delighted if such an amateur lightweight is sworn in as America's Number Two next January. Not to mention the Taliban and their friends in the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Agency. Does Palin even realize that Pakistan is America's ostensible "ally" in the "war on terror"? Or are all "those people" over there the same to her?

People need answers to these questions now.

It's called a bounce folks. They got a swing in women. But these women can't be as stupid as to believe all this crap from McCain and Palin.

As soon as the women start feltching out the garbage from the truth they'll see through the this and won't be goaded to vote, just because they want a woman in the Whitehouse.

It's not desperation. It's confidence in Barack. < :-)

Obama wouldn’t go so far as to say McCain and Palin are lying even when the audience tried to goad him into it, but he began showing an ad Monday that did.

Of course Republicans lie! It's the only way they can fool so many gullible Americans into voting for them.

Back in 2000, GW Bush went into office promising that he'd maintain government spending levels at or below the levels set by his predecessor. Instead, the budgets he submitted to Congress had more domestic spending in them than any president since LBJ's Great Society programs -- and the projected surpluses and balanced budgets turned into deficits and more debt. (So much for all of Bush's "executive experience.")

McCain, while admitting that the Republicans screwed up big time, seems to think that his party deserves four more years. The only way they can attempt to convince people of that is by lying about their own records and smearing their opponents.

All I can say is this: if large numbers of Americans won't vote for Obama simply because he's half-black, then the US deserves whatever bad fortune will surely befall it under McCain/Palin.

I agree with you, Masswipe.

As for bad fortune: Many will disagree, but in my view the elevation of GW Bush into the White House in 2000 all but guaranteed the success of the attacks on 9/11. If you consider what has happened between the refusal of Attorney General Ashcroft to allow the FBI to inspect the confiscated computer of the guy they caught in flight school (!) a month before the attacks, and how that has turned into torture, wholesale snooping on Americans, extraordinary rendition, etc., it's a wonder how real Americans could vote for more of the same.

I am reading a lot of GOP dream scripts here. Obama fails, Obama can't win. Dream on GOP fans. Don't forget that denial is one of the key steps of acceptance. You will get through it. Just be sure to keep the anger phase under control.

Obama is right. The McCain camp are doing anything they can to shore up their image. And in the near term that might work a bit with the polls. But over time it won't hold water. I guarantee it!

Just wait for the debates. Obama has answers and is strong on his feet. McCain can't seem to cure his foot in mouth disease without a teliprompter. So Obama will wipe the floor with him in the debates.

Now let's talk about sister Palin the right wing bull dog. Zero real experience and not a shred of ground to stand on. Biden will eat her and spit her out in debates. She may never recover from that night.

The GOP is on the way out and their friends know it. Bush is pulling 8K troops from Iraq to say, "Hey, we can get your kids home too." And they are ramping up Afghanistan and tension with Russia in hopes of playing the fear card again.

It won't work this time. Game over GOP. Just a matter of working through the steps to acceptance of that inevitable fact.

I don't think it is a pure hatred on Obama, it is just that to most Americans they don't see anything in him worth voting for.

If anything, the hatred has been on the left. Look at the majority of stories about McCain/Palin and they come from far left blogs like the Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, and the hatred and slander they make about the Repbulicans. In the past, when a Black man was running for governor or Maryland on the Republican ticket, the "liberal left" villified him and even had pictures posted of him in blackface as an "uncle tom" or a minstral performer. The same left groups have also gone into minority areas with tactics such as stating that if you have outstanding tickets, you will be arrested if you go to vote or if you have outstanding bills you will not be able to vote. These are tactics that have been verified in past elections done by many left leaning organizations to suppress many minority voters in areas where they stand the chance of loosing the vote.

Obama, likes to dish out the heat, but it seems that he can't take it.

Alphaape,

You spent an entire paragraph talking about liberal blogs villifying republicans.

Then you said Sen. Obama can dish it out, but can't take it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you are projecting things said on liberal blogs and falsely attributing them to Sen. Obama.

Did Sen. Obama or anyone officially affiliated with his campaign have anything to do with your assertions?

I really don't think so.

Taka

The Obamessiah is getting nervous...

Alphaape "Most Americans" Where did you get that statistic from? Fox News?

Come on. Be fair. The poll split now, looking across several and not just the ones we like, show a pretty even race. There is a message here.

The American people are tired of political BS, double speak, mud slinging and nonsense. They won't take the fear carrot this time around because they have more real and present fears in the economy and at home.

Party loyalty and rally cries will only get either side much progress this time around. What is necessary to win in 2008 is that the winner will need to convince the American people that he can address their problems and make things better.

How can McCain manage that when he doesn't even acknowledge that there are serious problems facing American families. His camp seems to think we are all a bunch of whining malcontents who don't see how good we have it.

I believe in the end Obama will show he has more grassroots planning in mind, more empathy and interest for the working person and a proper approach to many of our problems. And as such he will win in the end.

Even more so now that Palin becomes more and more scary every day with her whole book banning, Pentacostal, right wing bull dog credentials. Americans just don't like people who are too far the edge of normal. And well... Obama and Biden look and think a lot more like the family or the neighbors than McCain and Palin who clearly look like they are on some kind of hopeless crusade to justify the last eight years of GOP incompetence.

I myself thought it was kinda sad that Obama's convention speech, an attempt to bring all Americans together, has been viewed unfavorably in comparison to Palin's, which was a transparent effort to inject partisan rancor into the political discourse (presumably to rally the Republican base). As a colleague of mine put it today, "I'm sure if someone were to hold her head underwater the resulting steam would power a turbine."

That McCain has chosen to go this route is most saddening of all. He actually stood for something once upon a time. So his transformation is quite different from Mitt Romney's flip-flopping. McCain has reversed himself on almost everything (GWB tax cuts, global warming, immigration reform) to win. He once called the religious right "agents of intolerance." Now he's chosen one of their own as his running mate.

McCain no doubt feels this can all be rationalized on the grounds he'll do great things once in office. That's probably the way his supporters rationalize spreading disinformation about Obama. Yet I disagree with this assessment. McCain claims to have foreign policy experience but has exhibited poor judgment. Iraq was going to be a cakewalk, according to him the end was in sight in April 2003. By contrast Obama can stick by what he said in a now famous speech he made on the eve of the of the invasion in February 2003, in which he questioned whether the evidence against Saddam's arsenal of WMD necessitated a preemptive strike.

If Obama can successfully shift the debate back to the issues which affect us all he can win. The Republicans, even Cindy McCain, denounced the expanding role of the federal government at their recent convention. Yet what exactly do they wish to rollback? Homeland Security? The GWB administration just undertook the largest bail-out Uncle Sam has undertaken in several decades. Governor Palin criticized it today as "too costly." This may be a safe response for a Republican, but it displays stunning ignorance of what's involved. To do nothing would have risked global economic melt-down. Any president would have done the same but the necessity to do so calls into question the strength of our regulatory framework (which Republicans have done so much to dismantle).

Finally, the way to focus light on Palin's lack of qualifications is to highlight responses such as this one to the bail-out of Fannie and Freddie. I will say she's a fearless woman who's entirely comfortable with herself. I share those qualities and recognize how futile a personal assault is on someone like that. Of course she read her speech from a teleprompter; so did everyone else. It's just some did it well and others poorly. But it's clear she cannot handle questions others can (and that will only become more apparent).

To do nothing would have risked global economic melt-down.

I don't know how that would happen exactly, but I am sure there are more options than a)bail out and b) do nothing.

I myself thought it was kinda sad that Obama's convention speech, an attempt to bring all Americans together, has been viewed unfavorably in comparison to Palin's, which was a transparent effort to inject partisan rancor into the political discourse

It seems Americans can only hang on to peace and fairness for so long these days. Then they need their WWF violence and scream fix.

Yet what exactly do they wish to rollback? Homeland Security?

Probably would not be a bad start. But mere rollbacks are not going to pay for the Iraq debacle. Taxing the rich is a great idea though. Especially those who made enormous fortunes out of Iraq. Obama talks about taxing the rich. I hope he delivers.

By contrast Obama can stick by what he said in a now famous speech he made on the eve of the of the invasion in February 2003, in which he questioned whether the evidence against Saddam's arsenal of WMD necessitated a preemptive strike.

This just cannot be said enough.

McCain has reversed himself on almost everything (GWB tax cuts, global warming, immigration reform) to win. He once called the religious right "agents of intolerance." Now he's chosen one of their own as his running mate.

The day the American people make it unnecessary to do these things to win, they will get a president who is a real honest to goodness reformer who is consistent in all he does. That will not be this election. Sorry. I have more hope that Obama will instigate more reform, by the sheer power of morale boost, than McCain, but that is about it.

But if you can list me actual and significant reform that belongs to Obama, I am listening.

--Cirroc

There has been up to a 20 percent swing in some polls against him and the old white guy he chose as his running mate, biden.

Did you actually say "old white guy"? Why yet you did! Oops. The first name that pops into my head when you say this is McCain. Even when you write Biden without caps, I still think McCain. Doubt I am alone.

--Cirroc

Well who really cares. If Obama gets in he will be just one more of "the man" we don't want to be slavin for. ... I picked a bad day for giving up toot.

Well who really cares. If Obama gets in he will be just one more of "the man" we don't want to be slavin for

Is this a promotion for anarchy?

--Cirroc

Will the world ever be satisfied with a leader? especially a US leader? Tha man will always keep you down man!! Grow your hair into knots and grow illegal plants to rebel against the man. That'll show em. And no one will even remember who the leader is.

What happened to Obama's 7 point lead in the Gallup poll he had a couple of weeks ago?

What happened to Obama's 7 point lead in the Gallup poll he had a couple of weeks ago?

Brief holiday resting up for the final stretch?

--Cirroc

If Obama gets in, the Dems will have all 3 houses of government and are able to push trhough the most radical social engineering programs. (I guess that would be "change" they are talking about.) If MC gets in, he will only have the precidency, and at best stall the Democratic program. Which would be a good thing.

Honest politicians? Where are they? They are all in cemetaries...Honestly speaking how can ONE policy ( instead of 300 millions policies) of a government will make 300 millions people all happy? Just impossible, that is why there are always things like :change of mind, don't remember, broken promises, unforseable future, out of control circumstances...etc

Politicians lying? realy?

taka, tkniod2, I am not a shill for Fox News. I am a Black man (college educated too like Obama) and I don't like what he is saying as far as his policies go. So I don't think that when I voice my opinion of him, it has anything to do with far right hatred.

Obama gets asked the hard questions in the ABC Democratic debate (the same questions that Hillary had been asked) and he is crying foul. Far left bloggers like the ones on the Daily Kos blast the republicans and those who disagree with them, and yet Obama will go to a convention that they host. If McCain went to some of the far right political conventions, the press would never stop hounding him on it.

I will give Obama credit for the statements he made today about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, it was caused by people on both sides (Reps and Dems) who did not do their jobs with the correct oversight. Oh and by the way, some of the former heads of Fannie Mae made millions in bonuses, and these were political appointees by Bill Clinton. Just as well, some of the other failures that have happened have been appointees by Bush. So there is equal blame to go around. In my opinion, if Obama would at least step up and admit mistakes, and not try to be everyman for everybody, I would consider voting for him. But for now I am not.

If Obama gets in, the Dems will have all 3 houses of government and are able to push trhough the most radical social engineering programs.

I think we can survive long enough for the Republicans to take back Congress.

Truth be told, I prefer gridlock. It seems to me that the best thing any U.S. government could do right now is take a big eraser to a lot of things that passed Congress while consolidating others. That and tax the rich progressively.

I am not holding my breath though. At least gridlock ensures they won't do anything stupid other than sleeping at the wheel like they did with Iraq, and they probably will not be that stupid or lazy again for a while.

For now, I think we need a facelift. The president is the face of our nation. Obama is just the facelift we need.

--Cirroc

Seems to me that both of the extreme sides both just talk the talk and none of you prove any thing you say.. Internet sites are not proof unless they are just statistics recorded. Any news group can post a story written to slant to what ever way they what and I can find stories to counter any thing any one says when it comes to politics.

Obama-- He is just a young man who has the idea he can be a piece of history by being the first minority president in the US, but thats all he is after. He doesnt really give a damn about you or me he is just in it for the fame.

McCain--- He wants to stay in politics as thats all he knows.. He doesnt really care about you or me, hes in it for his own agenda..

You people who say one is great and the other is horrid are just showing your total lack of common sense, and a idiotic sheep type mentality..

In one hour of reading news reports I can find at least 10 lies for each of the president hopefuls that they have said in the last 12 months. I can also find tons of times they promised change of some sort or another and it never happened.. So please stop being a sheep and think with your own mind for once..

All politicians lie

Voters can sense the panic in barack obama's words. Looks like the 'I'm voting for obama because he's black' voters are being overwhelmed by the 'I'm voting for Sarah Palin becuase she's a woman' voters.

Heh, democrat Lemming Day will soon be here.

RR

Alphaape,

I am not going to speak for TKOind but what I would like to know is what things has Sen. Obama or his campaign said that you do not approve of?

Because in your first post, you complained about liberal blogs and then switched gears to Sen. Obama, insinuating that those things came from him or his campaign.

Daily Kos does not speak for Sen. Obama just like LGF or pajamas media does not speak for Candidate McCain. Anytime either side attributes the words to an unofficial blog, they are, at best, misinformed and at worst, in my opinion, lying.

Taka

Pin this to your fridge -

Despite what appears to be a shrinking lead, Obama aides argued that they maintain a strong position in the race.

The Obama camp is counting on holding all the states won by Kerry in 2004. The campaign also expressed confidence in its ability to flip Iowa and New Mexico, two states that went for Bush in the last election.

If Obama won all those states, they’d have 264 electoral votes. The remaining six needed for a win, said Plouffe, could come from a victory in Colorado, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, or Nebraska.

“When you look at the battleground states that will determine the presidency, we feel very good about where we are,” said Plouffe. “From a state by state perspective we’d much rather be us then John McCain.”

Earlier in the summer, the Obama campaign named 18 battleground states as prime advertising targets.

Obama recently stopped running ads in Georgia, a state the campaign originally identified as a potential battleground. Some Georgia field staff was moved into North Carolina, said Plouffe.

The campaign is still operating an aggressive ground game in Montana, North Dakota and Indiana, traditionally Republican states where Democrats see potential.

The Obama campaign is banking on their ability to expand the base of Democrats by registering independent and younger voters. They’ll also relay on e-mail and text messages to turnout the campaign's huge database of likely voters.

“John McCain not only has to match George W. Bush’s historic turnout job in Ohio and Florida, he has to exceed it because we believe our turnout will exceed John Kerry’s turnout,” said Plouffe.

For its part, the McCain campaign identified Pennsylvania and Michigan as prime battlegrounds. Aides say Palin’s working class background and strong social conservative credentials will mobilize the GOP base in those states.

“This is going to be a close election,” said Plouffe. “These are all going to be races that get decided from somewhere between one and six points."

WilliB

If Obama gets in, the Dems will have all 3 houses of government and are able to push trhough [through] the most radical social engineering programs. (I guess that would be "change" they are talking about.) If MC gets in, he will only have the precidency [presidency]...

The three branches of government are the judiciary, executive and legislative. The presidency is not considered a house of government. The legislature has two houses and it is very rare that the House of Representatives does not follow the party of the president in a presidential election.

SushiSake ::::

Wow you posted a article that quotes Obamas own people and that proves what???

Here is some poll information for all you guys who cant do anything with out a politically charged extreme idea poking its head form your backside.. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm

if you need more information let your fingers do the walking and search the net for poll information and stop typing such extremist crap all the time ...

I am not going to speak for TKOind but what I would like to know is what things has Sen. Obama or his campaign said that you do not approve of?"

Taka, I'm not going to speak for the person you posted the above for, but I highly disapprove of many accusation, and that goes for all candidates. In particular, the accusation of racism by older whites. At this time of bad economic times to come, people are just plain scared of change even though they need it. Are you ready to give your job up tomorrow and then venture into something you haven't done yet?

As dishonesty, please tell what politician from either major party can we put all our backing in and claim they are completely honest? If politicians start telling the truth, they won't get elected...

And, btw Obama was born out of the same old style Chicago politics which is just as brutal as Washington politics.

"extremist crap"

Like...it's going to be a close race? Like Sen. Obama is looking to register young voters? Like Sen. Obama is still confident?

That's extremist?

Someone needs to up their dosage.

Taka

there isnt a dishonest Republican in the whole of the USA.

McNeoCon; good posts buddy! At last another true patriot on these boards.

Obama can accuse whatever he likes, he should look at the polls, ha ha.

The left thought he was another JFK, more like another Walter Mondale. Hee Hee!

thanks moderateguy2008, i feel a patriot fighting a war against liberals. Now that the Democrats are rabidly attacking Sarah Palin over the Alaskan Ketchikan bridge, claiming she lied about shutting down the project, it might be a good moment to point out that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Heh, democrat Lemming Day will soon be here.

that has to be the funniest thing i ever read. what does it mean though?

McNeoCon; Those goddam Liberals, never to be trusted. The headline that Obama accuses Republicans of dishonesty made me laugh. About a week before the election theres gonna be big news from Obamas past showing his lack of patriotism and dishonesty.

The liberals know wde will win, taht is why they turn to name calling and telling tall stories. Obama should be ashamed of himself, hypocrit.

Nippon5

You people who say one is great and the other is horrid are just showing your total lack of common sense, and a idiotic sheep type mentality..

It seems to me that you consider yourself more intelligent than all of those who choose a party or candidate and support them. Maybe many of the posters know that all of the politicians lie. Maybe some of us comment on here like it is a sport or a game. Maybe we choose to belittle the opponent and praise our choice in a game of tit for tat. Maybe we choose to mix serious debate with sniping and humor. On the other hand maybe you are right. Let's have a look at what you claim. You say that both candidates don't care about "you or me." Well I would just love to learn how you can read minds. You claim that one cannot derive the truth out of the news available on the internet; but you can read minds from the news of these candidates (I presume you do not know either of them personally much less engaged them in analysis). That is very interesting. You must be far superior to we the lowly sheep. I know many intelligent people. It is funny they seem to be much less likely to claim to be endowed with the gift of intuition and claim more often to be endowed with deductive reasoning. They rarely claim the answers just come to them and much more frequently claim to be using methods to get at an ultimate answer. Don't get me wrong I will voice my opinion on what they are thinking also. There is a difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion. Right now for example I believe both candidates care about "you and me" to some degree. I happened to have watched Barack Obama on WTTW in Chicago, which is a PBS station, before he was initially elected to the Illinois legislature. I found him to be a very caring person then and watching him with his family now makes me say you are very wrong about him. On the other hand I believe John McCain cares about "you and me." I don't believe he is best suited to carry out the needs of the nation. I don't think he cares about the lower stratification of society as much as Obama. But I believe he cares and I believe he cares deeply. I do not like saying these good things about him. I like the game. I got game. When you and those like you say both sides are bad and people are sheep, who attach themselves to any of the various choices or some restrict their criticism to those who make a choice within the two party system, then you and people like you are able to take a pass when it comes to debating and supporting said choice. Of course the candidates posses the human condition and of course the system is flawed. Of course you must lie to get elected or you will not get elected. Those who are opposed to my liberal point of view on these threads are engaging and work to refute my comments as I often do with their comments. The most difficult debate is not of moral, ethics or means of governing. It is much more difficult to defend a candidate who, due to being human, makes mistakes all the time. Politics is a dirty, filthy sport. We could choose to ignore it or we can embrace it or we can choose something inbetween. Many people find they have to hold their nose when they vote. I believe most people who defend a candidate believe the candidate can offer the best package of political positions suited to their beliefs. Sometimes their choice may not be what is best for them personally. Warren Buffet is a Democrat. Warren Buffet argues that the rich should shoulder a greater portion of the burden of taxes to run the government. If he had it his way he would lose money because they took a larger percentage of money from all the rich. Warren Buffet is one of the richest men on earth (Always in the top 3 recently; often number 1). It is a lot easier to criticize the process and/or say there is no viable choice. It is a lot more difficult to defend someone you know is not perfect and you may in fact disagree with on some issues. It is nice and neat to remain above the fray it is very messy down here in the pit. Believe it or not when you mess up on this lowly JT there are attack dogs waiting to set the record straight. You have regular posters on here scouring the news from multiple sources to get at the truth. Once you realize that politics is not a science but an art form then you will see, those who are willing to engage and not be bystanders, have difficult tasks forced on them if they are to support their set of issues. Nippon5, I am not saying you did not make some valid points. I am saying I am not an idiot and I know that many other posters on JT are not idiots from the left and the right. I also have the opinion that you are wrong in saying that neither John nor Barack care about "you and me."

Moderator: Please use paragraphs.

Moderateguy2008 and McNeoCon, great posts guys.

The Obama fan club seems to have gone quiet now their boy is losing so badly. Obama makes lots of accusations and claims, but none of them stick.

People have realised the guy is an idiot, he either lies on purpose, or he is so delusional that he believes the trash he keeps spouting.

Skip, My point was that people (of all color and political affiliation) are taking things from blogs and attributing it to the candidates.

No matter who you support, that's either dumb or dishonest.

Taka

ModerateGuy2008, the McCain camp wont need the October Surprise,obama is already finished now that Mr McCain secured the votes of all us God fearing Americans in selecting Sarah Palin. obama is a muslim anyway the dems must have been smoking crack to nonimate a guy called hussein as there candidate

mcNeoCon, Not only did they nominate the guy with a funny name, but when he pretends to be christian , he goes to a church witha pastor who says whit people are evil and there is no reason to love America.

What a loser and a traitor. He labels Republicans dishonest, even after he met with European commies and embtaced their ideals.

Not one accusation he has made, has proved to be true. The guy is a nut job.

No way are VOR, RightToBearArms, ColAmerica, FreedomOfSpeech, usaexpat, moderateguy2008, McNeoCon and the many others I could not possible keep up with actually Sarge. They are the incarnations of RR! My only concern is: Where does reality lie for them . . . him . . . whatever.

I agree with McNeoCon, ModerateGuy2008, Sarge and ColAmerica-

Obama is a spent force. Accusations area last ditch attempt to win some votes. However the nation has seen through the charade, he is a loser already.

McCain and Palin to keep our country in a safe pair of hands!

Running against Sarah is so freaking stupid. She is America's Sweetheart now & competent as all get outIt's gonna sink the entire Obama campaign if he keeps on this line of campaigning. I don't think Obama can resist it. Ego's too big.

just look at how many of us here support Mr Mcain. obama is finished

democrat weasel day approaches!!

i feel a patriot fighting a war against liberals.

I got nothing against gay people ,we need their outrage , but you need to be more careful in your posting

In the past, when a Black man was running for governor or Maryland on the Republican ticket, the "liberal left" villified him and even had pictures posted of him in blackface as an "uncle tom" or a minstral performer.

This was not done by the "liberal left," but by a single individual. And it was decried by Democrats and Republicans alike. Smearing the entire Democratic Party with it is a sure sign of hatred. And it's Republicans who try to gain mileage with that photo now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702115_pf.html

Wow, so many people have already decided the outcome of the election and we're still months away...

McCain has secured all the American votes? Huh. Not mine. And a lot of other people apparently.

yabits

LOL!! (I wonder if USNinJapan is keeping track of all their posts.)

I wonder if he uses a spreadsheet for "analysis." I can just see the Excel document labeled Liberal Coments Count. Then there would be a sheet for each thread.

First I would like to say that I don't blame the mods when they remove comments like this. Lastly, and much more important, I appreciated the comment that asked me to "Please use paragraphs." It makes comments more readable and that benefits everyone.

I believe the reason Obama won the nomination is because he opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go. Granted, he was a state senator who didn't vote on the use of force authorization. But he took a stand. By contrast, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton did the expedient thing; whatever their misgivings they listened to that inner voice which told them, "You can't oppose the war and run for President."

Here we our six years later, watching as the Maliki government locks up the Sunni Awakening Council leaders who rejected Al Qaeda (at great personal risk). The surge was supposed to reduce violence to enable political reconciliation to occur. Instead the Maliki government has used it to consolidate Shia power.

We need a leader who can recognize unnecessary (and costly) foreign entanglements which do nothing to enhance our security. And someone who understands you have to balance the books at the end of the day (which John McCain did in 2001 when he opposed the GWB tax cuts which added five trillion to the national debt). I'm not sure anyone can get us out of this mess, but first first we need to stop digging.....

As to Obama calling them liars, they clearly are. Their speeches at the conventions were so utterly full of exaggerations and lies that it's a wonder any single American hasn't booted them already. THEN they have the gall to say that Obama is lying about their lies! HAHAhahaha.

republicans lying? No, what is Obama trying to pull.

The question is when do republicans tell the truth. Most cant handle the truth. Like those pesky fictionaly WMD in Iraq that lead to the bush invasion.

Are the Republicans liars? Is there proof or is it rumour? I never seen so much arguing in my life, what is going on here?

zucronium, i don`t understand what you and Mr Smith are talking about. Does it mean the Republicans have been dishonest or not?

The global liberal panic....the panic!!!

RR

That Mr Obama, he good man of peace. If he says that the Republican people is dishonest, then i believe him. He talk from his heart and he love America from deep in the soul.

The McCain man like making war and kill people he not like, just like his friend Bush.

Mr Obama is man to stop the wars, and make the peace for mankind.

MrEggAndSpoon- What are you talking about? Obama has no facts of lies by any Republicans. The only one who is dishonest and flip flops is Obama himself. Because he is way behind McCain in the polls, he is trying desperate measures, but everyone knows he is full of BS, the guy is a major league jerk.

Quirinus will be voting Republican, unless there really is some very damaging dirt on Palin or McCain.

I just cannot trust Obama. His style reminds me of Tony Blair, a similar type of guy, who promised change, but was the same as his peers.

I think he is as likely to cause war, as McCain, he dosn't want to look weak and unpatriotic to the American people.

One can't help but get the sense that there is a meltdown in the land of obama. barack obama needs to keep flapping his gums. The more he attacks he more the polls go the other way for him:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx

Good times.

RR

I agree with RomeoRamenll. I notice that there is no substance to Obama`s accusations.

In a way i feel sorry for him, he had a chance, he has blown it, so i guess i`m kinda relieved to.

Sarge- Great post buddy, really made me chuckle. Tee Hee!

Obama, stop your dirty tricks, and concede the election to McCain, and save the nation millions of Dollars in the process. There is no dirt on McCain or Palin, two honorable candidates, true god fearing folks who love their nation.

mccain always screws up as the front runner. He has been running for president since the 70s when he dumped his first wife for the beer lady.

one huge lie he is telling is that he will change things, his staff are all lobbyests. He was one of the Keating five who sold out to the banks in the reagan 80s that cost the american taxpayer billions.

He is telling the truth that the last eight years have been a total failure. but the normal deadenders on this board dont address that fact as stated by mccain.

he had a chance, he has blown it

True dat. obama did have the chance to close the deal and let slip through his fingers.

However, regardless of hillary publically leaving open the possbility of being obama's VP before he picked joe "ballot-box poison" biden I believe that when hillary and obama had that super-secret meeting before the convention, she told him she wanted no part of being on his ticket.

The clintons are political war horses and they believe that obama won't pull this election off.

Winding up selecting Senator 5 percent as his running mate was, heh, the best obama could do.

RR

The more he attacks he more the polls go the other way for him:

The polls tend to favor whoever has control of the most recent newscycle. That has been McCain for the past week. Undecideds can go off in another direction tomorrow based on new information.

This entire election has been unprecedented in the fluidity of voter preference. Huckabee literally came out of nowhere to beat what looked like an invincible Romney, who'd won a straw poll handily a few months earlier, in Iowa. Some thought he'd peaked too early but that did not prove to be the case.

Most Americans do want change; but they also know they are unlikely to get it no matter who is elected.

Betzee- Most Americans are patriots dude. There is only one choice to vote for.

Obama cannot be trusted, he makes false accusations against McCain and he wants to socialise healthcare, which would bankrupt America.

What a joke, the world is laughing at Obama.

Heh, it's great fun watching the Republicans on JT getting all excited about their..um...."team" at the top.

Pity about the desperate pick of palin by McCain last week - he was so totally cornered he had next to no choice

Also, pity about Sarah Palin, all flashy and gimmicky, but no substance.

And for all the Republicans who think McCain's desperate pick is going to drag a significant number of Hillary voters, yeah, well...she will - if millions of Hillary voters put their hands over their eyes and reverse themselves on every principle they ever held dear.

And did I mention the Democrats are pulling in record numbers of new members?

Best the Republicans don't find that - who wants to spoil their little fantasy about a McCain win?

, and when news gets out - and it will - about her non-existant foreign policy background, yep, the fireworks will blow

moderateguy2008 - "There is no dirt on McCain or Palin, two honorable candidates, true god fearing folks who love their nation."

Heh, clueless, and yet another reason why Obama has this election in the bag.

SushiSake3- Hehe You're cluthching at straws man.

Obama is losing votes by the day, he has no facts that any lies have been told by Palin and McCain. America looks at him like a total numbskull.

Even all the praise by the ebiased Liberal media can`t save his sorry skin.

Now that Lieberman supports the McCain/Palin ticket it will be interesting to see if the Jewish vote in places like Long Island will allow Mr. McCain to carry New York.

barack, you fool. The party's over.

RR

RomeoRamenll- Great post, i salute you sir. Great insight threr, re the Jewish vote. I kinda think New York will vote for the good guy.

Hey Obama, get any dirt to dish out about Mr Lieberman? Bwahahaha.

This entire election makes me wonder - is the intense hatred, anger, ignorance and ability to lie so often they even convince themselves their lies are the truth, ie: the core personal traits of your typical Republican - going to be the final straw that leads to the Republican Implosion of 2008?

Or will it be McCain's failure to pick a serious VP candidate? Or will it be the fact that the Republican ticket simply has no strategy whatsoever to deal with the core issues facing Americans? Or the fact that McCain has flip-flopped on the issues more times than Sarah Palin has mouthed outright lies about Barack Obama?

Heh, that's a right smorgasbord of reasons the Republicans are staring at their final few months in power :-)

Madverts- Please furnish us with more details sir.

Dishonesty is a trait which does not apply to Sen McCain, as i believe you well know.

It was only a matter of time until the obama dog walkers in the U.S. media could no longer rave about someone with no real qualities of greatness, other than his own oratory; most or all of it copied from other famous Americans, living or dead.

When Americans seek depth in obama, we instead are confronted with nothing more than a big talker who has never done a single imaginative, powerful or courageous thing that ever made any difference.

It's great entertainment watching the barack obama love train campaign come unglued.

RR

Obama now says he is open to offshore oil drilling. So, apparently, when he promised change, he was talking about his mind.

Jay Leno

SushiSake3- There are no rumours or scandals that will stick on McCain or Palin.

Policies will win the day for McCain.

"McCain's failure to pick a serious VP candidate"

Gosh darn it, Sushi, now I got Dr Pepper all over my keyboard! But thanks for the knee slapper!

McCain and Palin have behaved in a wonderfull way, without the insults and jibes so loved by their opponents.

“Sounds pretty good until you discover that seven of his top campaign managers and officials are — guess what? Former corporate lobbyists.

Fair enough but who are Obama's advisers, who is his running mate and finally who pulls his strings and where have all his campaign contributions come from? Obama as a reformer or anything other than the tired old Democratic party line isn't credible. He may be a fresh face but he does not have a fresh set of ideas. Obama,change I can't believe in.

ColAmerica - "McCain and Palin have behaved in a wonderfull way, without the insults and jibes so loved by their opponents."

LOL!! ColAmerica's slide into irrelevance is already over.

"the insults and jibes" Heh, that's not a nice way to talk about Sarah Palin's nomination speech! :-)

I thought you considered her as a serious candidate?

SushiSake3- again only snide remarks.

Do you have any evidence of dishonesty by Palin or McCain?

They have clean hands, they do not have skeletons in their cupboards.

SushiSake3- You could not say such treachery were it not for the freedoms kept in place by Republicans.

Palin did not insult or insinuate anything. She lives life by gods rules, a higher standard than regular folk.

Palin and McCain both do not have even the slightest blemish against their names.

usaexpat - good 11:54 post

Also, keep in mind that when he did bother to vote, obama has sided 97% of the time with his party. And America is doing just fine with the dems controlling Congress while they are enjoying a 9% approval rate.

I guess we can call obama's ch..ch..ch..change "the winds of change"; just a different man blowing hot air about the same old democrat rhetoric.

RR

SushiSake3- In what way have my freedoms been taken away from me? Only bad guys need worry about increased security.

Can we get back to the point. I have yet to see either of the Republican candidates act dishonestly.

Does your opinion differ from mine?

Heh, the "debate" just gets better.

I don't think it's a good idea for Obama to accuse anyone else of dishonesty. Glass houses, rocks, all that.

"You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself."

You should know, Senator Change. Say, still having your Annenburg records redacted?

"Glass houses, rocks, all that."

Heh, after the last eight years of honesty and integrity, I understand your pain young man..

Madverts- 8 years of prudent government, and stability only causes pain to the Democrats.

I guess you hark back to the good old days of pants down Clinton, where city centers were full of homeless, and mentally ill destitutes.

Where is the dishonesty from the Republicans. I only see a committment to serve America, and a love for our great nation.

Still campaigning against Bush? Good luck with that. Shame you can't concentrate on your own candidate's record of "change". Or honesty. Or integrity. Or reform. Or accountability. Or experience. Or decisiveness.

But he can charm chickens into voting for Colonel Sanders, can't he? Someone out there is a pyramid scheme missing its pitch-man.

Whitey - bud, you were an ardent bush supporter. Heh, it's more than amusing for an outsider like me to guffaw at the flip-flops as you know shrug off 8 years of disaterous mis-management, and shore up support through blind partisanship for a candidate the represents more of the same...

I've been saying it for a year now - finding a bush supporte come November will be harder than finding a fart in a jaccuzzi.

Heh, the "debate" just gets better.

How are ya doing, buddy? ;)

Gov. Palin still took the money for the earmark of the bridge to nowhere and still spent in Alaska. Whether it went to the bridge to nowhere or some other pork belly use, makes no difference.

Palin still took the earmarked money and never turned it down.

She's a liar. < :-)

She's a liar. Bold faced liar like her alternate hero george bush. < :-)

Another dishonest, disingenuous aspect of Palin's spiel is her harping on how both she and her pregnant daughter have "chosen life."

The fact is that one cannot choose anything unless viable options are available, and it is also a fact that, if Palin had her way, there would be no options but forcing all women to give birth. The honor that she claims for herself and her daughter would not be there if it weren't for the hard fought recognition for reproductive rights -- something that Palin herself does not recognize.

Palin and McCain are IMHO the most moral and honorable candidates in living memory.

Then you haven't been living very long moderateguy2008. < :-)

You believe in peace but you support Mr Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran?

Heh, that makes sense.

yabits, adaydream and Madverts, I have not advocated bombing Iran. Pinpoint missle strikes possibly, to remove the nuclear threat.

i would not supprt candidates who are not honest. My judgement is sound.

Liberals make jibes, acusse McCain and Palin of lying, but where is the proof guys?

Madverts,

I know what you mean, and it just amazes me how someone can say with evident pride that they chose something -- when, if they truly had their way, the choice would be denied to others.

I get the feeling that so many Republicans believe their own BS about Obama being some kind of "messiah" to the extent that they also believe Palin's got a halo.

Lots of insults and speculation here, but does anyone have any evidence that the Republicans have lied.

but does anyone have any evidence that the Republicans have lied.

When Republicans say that "Palin stopped the bridge," they are lying. She didn't stop it, Congress did. Palin actually supported the bridge before Congress killed the necessary federal funding for it.

yabits- Can you prove this allegation?

Would this classy lady not tell the truth about her dealings?

She is already a legend, i refuse to believe such scandalous comments.

OfficialVersion: "I refuse to believe...."

OfficialVersion: "Can you prove...."

It is not possible to prove anthing to someone who refuses to believe the evidence that is obvious to anyone who is impartial. When Republicans claim that "Sarah stopped the bridge," they are lying.

What did Sarah Palin as Gov. of Alaska do with the money she received for the Bridge to Nowhere? We know the state received the money.

How much money did Alaska receive due to the efforts of the lobbiests who worked for the state of Alaska?

Now republicans, what did she do with the money? < :-)

adaydream, maybe she gave the money to her relation Micheal `Palin to make one of his funny flicks.

I don`t know if anyone is dishonest. Ireckon they are all as bad as each other probably.

RR, ColAmerica, OfficialVersion, ModerateGuy,

You fellas listen up good. McCain's post-convention bounce in the polls has evaporated. Poof! It's gone. The election is still the horse race it always has been (and I expect it to continue to be). There's a certain segment of the electorate which is content with Japanese LDP-style one party forever governance. They may believe the McCain-Palin pitch that the Republican Party can reform and discipline itself. Or they may believe things are swell and the libbies, who always make everything worse anyway, are just tryin' to foment discontent.

But most Americans have felt the pinch. Though they may not appreciate the fact all that is standing between us and sky-high interest rates is foreign central banks infusions of cash to keep Uncle Sam afloat, everyone understands good times on a borrowed dime never last.

As for your belief that Palin would help McCain with NY Jews, dream on. New York is not even in play. Palin may get McCain Ohio, which has a strong evangelical community in the south, but her presence on the ticket will likely harm him in Florida where Jewish voters are a bloc to be courted. Simply put, they are a highly literate bloc and have no doubt been apprised of her pastor's connections to Jews for Jesus, the founder of which preached to a congregation which included the Palin family. This group is far more disturbing to them than Reverend Wright's ranting. Plus, few educated voters are comfortable with banning books. Is information really to be feared? That's not my America.

Palin earmarks - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-earmarks1-2008sep01,0,6108885.story

McCain's earmark Queen Gov. Palin < :-)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/palins_earmarks_spark_question.html?hpid=topnews

John bush would make earmarks and their authors/receivers famous? He chose the earmark Princess as his running mate. < :-)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,5932587.story

John bush and Sarah Palin want your votes but they don't want to own up to the truth.

Somebody ask for lies make by republican/McCain and Palin. Then do a little searching on your own. It's easy to find. < :-)

Betzee:

As for your belief that Palin would help McCain with NY Jews, dream on. New York is not even in play. Palin may get McCain Ohio, which has a strong evangelical community in the south, but her presence on the ticket will likely harm him in Florida where Jewish voters are a bloc to be courted. Simply put, they are a highly literate bloc and have no doubt been apprised of her pastor's connections to Jews for Jesus, the founder of which preached to a congregation which included the Palin family.

If the Jewish community is highly literate (no argument there), then why do most of them vote for a party that consistently sides with Israel's enemies?

I know why one friend of mine does: He's a trial lawyer. As for the one that's a structural engineer, I've to have the chance to ask him.

Aligning Palin with a one-time guest preacher? Saying it's worse than sitting Wright's church for 20 years? Vague hints of "book banning"? I thought this sort of thing was beneath you Betzee.

the truth: money doesn't lie, it's all about the money.

Our money is worth less = Taxes must go up (McCain lie) +the Fannie Mac bail-out.

Hillary and McCain would make a great lieing team -but Hilliary is a better drinker (true)

Our Gov has money trees: True for Fannie Mac, the Great U.S. Taxpayer has bailed them out.

Aligning Palin with a one-time guest preacher? Saying it's worse than sitting Wright's church for 20 years? Vague hints of "book banning"? I thought this sort of thing was beneath you Betzee.

You can look into these matters yourself if they were given short shrift by your favorite media outlets, Whitehawk.

Judiasm is compatible with intellectual pursuits. Indeed, Jews are overrepresented in almost every field requiring education. By contrast evangelical Christianity is not. Creationism is not science. And, wonders never cease, evangelical Christians are not well represented in cutting edge fields.

More problematically, evangelical Christians are asked to spread the word. They've seen the light and they want to share it with everyone else, including "Jews for Jesus." For many Jews, this is simply a painful reminder of European history which is replete with Christian pogroms against Jews who refused to convert.

Sarah Palin is not going to win McCain many votes within the American Jewish community. Joseph Lieberman, by contrast, would have given him an edge in Florida.

Betzee,

I do agree with you about alot of it. My only concern is the race issue. Even though I believe many Americans are more in-line with Obama but because of his race they may side with McCain.

The Jews you discuss may just choose to identify with McCain. Think about West Virginia and all the ignorant white-trash. There was a political race in Tennesse about a decade ago where the African-American candidate was far superior but still lost. They later interviewed some of the voters and one said and I quote "I would rather vote for a stupid white man than a black man." It just might happen again. I certainly hope not.

Oh, I forgot West Virginia is pretty much a Democrat state but it is well documented that majority will not vote for Obama. The majority feel that a black man should never run this country. How stupid is that?

jwills79,

I share your concerns. The "Bradley effect," named after the former African-American Mayor of Los Angeles, who lost the governor's race in 1982 despite being ahead in the polls, refers to the discrepancy between polling predictions and electoral outcomes in the case of a non-white candidate. Simply put, respondents can be hesitant to admit to a pollster they will not vote for a black man. Obama was predicted to win New Hampshire, a predominantly rural and overwhelming white state, but Hillary prevailed.

There's two factors which weigh in Obama's favor to overcome residual racism. One, McCain is not a very exciting candidate (and the novelty of Palin will peak). Two, the state of the economy (more bankruptcies on the horizon). Can Obama fix it? I don't know but it's clear McCain doesn't have a clue.

The majority feel that a black man should never run this country. How stupid is that?

I think if you were raised to see the world that way it's very hard to shake free of it. Both my parents have told me that anti-Catholicism was a part of their very different upbringings. But it's completely alien to me and I think to the rest of my baby boomer cohort. Prejudice can be overcome but probably on a generational rather than individual basis.

Palin ripped off the state of Alaska for over 300 nights of per diem and stayed at home. Used state money to pay btyravel expences for her husband an d children.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/palin_per_diem_travel_expenses.html < :-)

adaydream

Palin ripped off the state of Alaska...

Palin vetoed nearly half a billion dollars in wasteful spending, including getting rid of the government private jet and limo. Yet we're supposed to get worked up about a $60-a-day per diem to cover meals and other sundry expenses which were permitted by the State of Alaska since she wasn't staying in Juneau? How about we calculate the travel expenses Biden has charged the federal government to commute between D.C. and Delaware over the past 30+ years?

"Palin's travel spending pales in comparison with that of predecessor Frank Murkowski, who charged $463,000 for air fare in 2006. Palin charged $93,000 in 2007."

The leftists are desperate for anything at this point. Hehe.

How bout all the republicans here try and answer any of these truthfully

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/321/story/52155.html

I also found this interesting Im having a look for my self, was a comment posted.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/does_the_truth_matter_anymore.html?hpid=topnews

The old John McCain? Which one:

1959 John: The wild man who partied like a lunatic and graduated near the bottom of his class.

1969 John: War hero. Got shot down; I'm not saying that he should have taken his training more seriously, but crashing 5 planes? Anybody can have bad luck in war, but you have to work hard first to make me feel sorry for you.

1979 John: Ditched his first wife to marrying into a powerful, wealthy, connected organized crime family so he could make a career change and go into politics

1989 John: After cavorting in the Caymans with Keating - of Savings and Loan Scandal infamy - gets caught pocketing $112,000 (and doesn't report it to the IRS). Gets off scot-free

1999 John: Uses campaign finance reform to whitewash his influence peddling sins and runs for President as a maverick

2008 John: Embraces Bush's tax cuts, the far right religious agents of intolerance, a right wing looney as VP who believes in using science to find the oil but not to clean up the mess from oil, who believes in using science to protect her personal health but not our shared planet.

McCain is a fraud who lies, cheats and steals.

Please don't tell me that the liberal writers from the WaPo can't see into the true nature of his character. I know stuff gets edited, but, please tell us that you people have the capacity to, if not write about, then at least perceive the truth.

When we've lost the ability to see and speak or write the truth, then we have lost our way.

The New York Times did an investigation and called out Sen. McCain for marrying into an organized crime family. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/politics/23mccain.html

Palin vetoed nearly half a billion dollars in wasteful spending, including getting rid of the government private jet and limo. Yet we're supposed to get worked up about a $60-a-day per diem to cover meals and other sundry expenses which were permitted

Yeah, not sure how I feel about this. She was less venal than her predecessor. I guess that's a good thing. Sort of.

Doesn't change the fact that she had more earmarks per capita than any other state. The fiscal rectitude angle will be a hard sell. More like fiscal rectal probe on the tax dollars of those in the other states.

Obama said, "You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig" and the Republicans knew he was talking about Palin. I wonder if they knew Cheney was talking about Palin when he said the same thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjwVEeq7JiQ

Brought to you by the Republican Liars Club

http://www.necn.com/category/32/18332

On a conference call with reporters arranged by the McCain campaign, former Massachusetts Acting Gov. Jane Swift (R) demanded that Barack Obama apologize for his "lipstick on a pig" reference, even though it is a common expression frequently used in political campaigns.

Swift said:

"The formation of the Palin truth squad couldn't have happened too soon, as we saw when Senator Obama in Lebanon, Virginia this evening uttered what I can only deem to be disgraceful comments comparing our Vice-Presidential nominee Governor Palin to a pig. It's clear to me as I am sure it will be to fair-minded Republicans, Democrats, and Independents across the country that Senator Obama owes Governor Palin an apology."

/

Asked what makes her think that Obama was referring to Palin, Swift said that the Alaska governor is the only one who wears lipstick, adding that everyone heard Palin's lipstick reference during last week's convention speech.

/

"As part of his apology if Sen. Obama wants to say he was talking about Sen. McCain, he is welcome to do that."

I hit "Submit" instead of "Preview" on my previous comment. So you did not get my usual continuity of a quote and opinion. Could Swift be more of a dumbass? Oh, and did I mention Liar? Obama accuses Republicans of dishonesty and on cue they lie their asses off; how convenient.

Brought to you by the Republican Liars Club

Obama said, "You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig" and the Republicans knew he was talking about Palin.

Curious. Why would the Republicans immediately want to associate Palin with a pig? It was reported that McCain, too, has used the expression on the 2008 campaign trail.

yabits

Good Call! I would not have thought to look for that quote by McCain. But here it is:

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal.

And by her it was Hilary he was speaking of. Shame on the Liars!

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/mccain_rolls_out_health_plan_a.html

Brought to you by the Republican Liars Club

goodDonkey,

Quite simply, Republicans continue to expect a critical mass of voters to be stupid. And who can blame them? After all, it's what has given us GWB for 8 years.

The editorial cartoonist, Tom Toles, put it best about McCain-Palin:

"Except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove-style politics -- except for all that, we're really going to bring change to Washington! We’re really going to shake things up!"

As one can see, the lie is inherent to their basic message.

adaydream:

McCain's earmark Queen Gov. Palin < :-)

John bush would make earmarks and their authors/receivers famous? He chose the earmark Princess as his running mate. < :-)

John bush and Sarah Palin want your votes but they don't want to own up to the truth. Somebody ask for lies make by republican/McCain and Palin. Then do a little searching on your own. It's easy to find. < :-)

As usual, adaydream, there is your "truth", and then there is the whole truth. From libertarian Boortz:

When it comes to Sarah Palin, we've been through the specifics on this Bridge to Nowhere cr-p. In fact, the Democrat Party in Alaska acknowledges that it was Sarah Palin who finally scrapped the bridge. That website, by the way, disappeared for a while, until pressured to re-post the page (which they did, only at a different address). But just as a little side note ... guess who DID vote for the Bridge to Nowhere. Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Why doesn't the media bring THAT to your attention. Even when given a second chance to shift the funds to Katrina relief programs, Obama and Biden still voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. While John McCain did not end up voting on the amendment, he is on record opposing the earmark.

When it comes to Sarah Palin's record of reform ... let's just look at earmarks, since this is something that Palin and her Senate opponents have in common. Before Sarah Palin's time as governor, the state of Alaska used to request over 100 earmarks each year to be secured by Alaska's congressional delegation. When it came time for Sarah Palin to request her earmarks for the first time as governor ... she slashed that number by half, requesting 54 earmarks. The next year, Palin cut that number AGAIN down to just 31 earmarks. Of those 31 earmarks, 27 of these are continuous or were previously appropriated. When Palin entered the governor's office, the total amount of quests averaged $550 million a year. That number has been reduced to less than $200 million now that Palin is in office. And it would only continue to decline. One of Palin's stated goals as Governor is to ask Congress for no more than a dozen earmarks for her state. On top of all that, Palin insisted that each earmark requested by the state of Alaska demonstrate an important federal purpose and public support. Whenever possible, Palin wants to have earmarks only if they can be matched by state or local budgets. And her administration is currently re-examining previous decisions on transportation earmarks ... the Alaska Department of Transportation is conducting an audit to determine the status of every single one of its recent earmarks.

Let's go ahead and take a look at Barack Obama's earmarks in the Senate. In just three years, Barack Obama has requested over 300 earmark projects totaling $740 million. For the 2008 fiscal year alone, Obama requested 112 earmarks. Sarah Palin? 31.

Betzee:

You can look into these matters yourself if they were given short shrift by your favorite media outlets, Whitehawk.

I have. That's why I'm questioning why you're clinging to them.

Judiasm is compatible with intellectual pursuits. Indeed, Jews are overrepresented in almost every field requiring education.

Like I said, no argument there.

Sarah Palin is not going to win McCain many votes within the American Jewish community. Joseph Lieberman, by contrast, would have given him an edge in Florida.

...and loose the staunch conservative vote. Sacrifice the country to gain one state? Brilliant. Obama could've picked Clinton for his running mate (not too late, you know) and this race would've been over. Why didn't he? Sexism, perhaps? ;-)

By the way, you still didn't answer my question - Why does the Jewish community vote for a party that consistently sides with Israel's enemies?

jwillis79:

There was a political race in Tennesse about a decade ago where the African-American candidate was far superior but still lost.

Are you referring to Harold Ford Jr's 2006 senate race? If not, which contest are you referring to? If you are, HF Jr is from the "Memphis Mafia", the hyper-corrupt Ford political crime family. He was anything but "superior".

Betzee:

There's two factors which weigh in Obama's favor to overcome residual racism.

Oh, the race card, I'm scared! Look, if right-leaning people voted for ultra-left Obama because he is considered black, that would be racism. Right-leaning people not voting for ultra-left Obama -despite decades of having "white guilt" thrown at them- is not racism.

Haven't any race-sensitive leftists/liberals noticed how blacks can openly say they're voting for a black candidate only because he's black, Hispanics/Latinos can do the same for Hispanic/Latino candidates, but if whites say anything similar about white candidates, they're automatically labeled racists? So much for equality, eh? I thought all racists were created equal. :-)

WhiteHawk - Scrapped the bridge and kept the money. What's the difference. Eramarked money still spend by Gov. Palin. Before that she had a lobbiest for her little town and got $millions and $Millions. She took earmarked money.

Truth or not, did Sarah Palin take earmarked money?

Running on no earmarks. She's a big liar.

But WhiteHawk tell me how she didn't get any earmarks.

I don't care that there were only 31 requested earmarks, she's pounding the podium denouncing earmarks. She's a hypocrit. < :-)

adaydream, you're only proving my point - that there is your "truth", and then there is the whole truth. You can omit the context all you want (you must bitterly cling to your agenda, after all), but the whole truth is that Palin was reducing both the number and amount of earmarks just as she promised during her gubernatorial campaign. Period. There's no way you can spin out of that.

Yes, Alaska kept the money that Obama and Biden voted for. Alaska did still have to find some solution for the people on the island, even if it was with only a tenth of the funding sought by Stevens.

Remember when Pelosi promised a transparent congress with less corruption, and to "do something" about earmark soending? Oops.

Remember when Obama promised a "new, different" kind of politics? Again, thanks to Boortz:

He sent his campaign workers to the voter registrar's office and kept them there until they had managed to disqualify everyone running against him.

Now the word is that Obama has sent dozens – who knows how many operatives – to Alaska to work 24/7 on digging up some dirt on Sarah Palin.

But Obama who says it's McCain and Palin who are being dishonest? Obama's the biggest liar and fraud running for this office since Al Gore.

When Boortz claims that it was Palin who scrapped the bridge, he's lying. I don't care if he quotes ten Alaskan Democratic websites. The truth is that she supported the bridge project up until the time that Congress voted down funds for it.

Remember when Obama promised a "new, different" kind of politics? Again, thanks to Boortz: [reference to "operatives" heading to Alaska to dig up "dirt" on Palin]

So, you are calling a Obama a liar based on this kind of hearsay? From one of the biggest dirtbags on the airwaves?

First off, there's nothing wrong with researching a candidate's past record, especially one so little known to the general public as Sarah Palin. Personally, I think most Americans would love to learn of Palin's response in the 2006 Alaska governor's debate when she hoped that, in the event her then-16-year-old daughter was raped, she would carry and give birth to the rapist's child. Moreover, that if she had things her way, ANY woman who was raped would be FORCED to give birth. But, as those who are familiar with Boortz knows, he will not allow discussion of this topic.

What can't be allowed to happen is for the enemies of truth like this WhiteHawk to define and judge what Obama really means by "different." Especially while they live in their gutter and try to drag every truly decent person into it with them.

So, you are calling a Obama a liar based on this kind of hearsay?

Calling Obama a liar based on the documented tactics of his Illinois senate race alone is sufficient.

From one of the biggest dirtbags on the airwaves?

Why is Boortz "one of the biggest dirtbags on the airwaves"? Does Rhandi Rhodes rank as a bigger dirtbag in your book?

Personally, I think most Americans would love to learn of Palin's response in the 2006 Alaska governor's debate when she hoped that, in the event her then-16-year-old daughter was raped, she would carry and give birth to the rapist's child. Moreover, that if she had things her way, ANY woman who was raped would be FORCED to give birth. But, as those who are familiar with Boortz knows, he will not allow discussion of this topic.

Boortz never discusses abortion, ever. If you weren't so busy removing the context from every argument you disagree with, you would know that.

But hey, if you want to talk abortion, I'm okay with that. We can discuss Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Protection Act, and his opposition to having a doctor present to provide care for babies that survived abortion attempts, positions that are too extreme even for NARAL to support.

What can't be allowed to happen is for the enemies of truth like this WhiteHawk to define and judge what Obama really means by "different."

Enemies of your "truth". Sure, we'll just let Obama define his "change" after the fact. The old "move the goal posts after the game" tactic you and adaydream regularly employ.

The lie has ALWAYS been about the bridge.

The bridge -that Obama and Biden voted for- was not Palin's idea, nor did she support it 100% or exclude alternatives from consideration. Attempting to paint Palin as invested in the bridge is a lie. She went along with the bridge as a possible solution, and then she went along with the cancellation of the project. If she's claiming to be the sole "killer" of the bridge, then she's not telling the whole truth.

Any other poster's errors as to earmarks does nothing to remove that lie.

Thanks for acknowledging that adaydream is wrong. That's two Obama supporters with a more balanced perspective than aday.

Let's face it, as long as these NeoCons get away with saying the Main Stream Media is invalid then they can drag their kooks out of the woodwork and steer a debate anyway they want. They do the same thing by denying that the majority of scientists know what they are talking about. They put down the majority of Professors across this nation. WhiteHawk can't bring you a credible source; he never can. WhiteHawk can't bring you a variety of sources; he never can. MSM as they like to call the real press has been tested over and over and is the reliable means of information. The reason the NeoCons have to quote little known sources is because when their sources come to light they fail the test of credibility and fade away. It is very clear that Palin wanted the "Bridge to Nowhere." It is a resolved issue. She had nothing to do with scrapping the project. It is a resolved issue. WhiteHawk does not provide sources he provides the equivalence of an OpEd piece.

GoodDonkey

You said it. Lying liars and the Liars who lie.

Republican brazenly tell out-and-out lies.

In the past, politicians would shade the truth a bit and if they were caught, would stop. No longer.

Straight Talking Mccain says Obama's gonna d raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000. But a poll taken Sept. 5-7 shows that 51% of the voters thought Obama would raise their taxes. Republican strategist John Feegery said: "these little facts don't really matter."

Little Facts Don't really matter. What matter's to Straight Talking McCain is trying to exploit the long-standing Republican theme that Democrats raise taxes and Obama's promise to raise taxes only on the rich is an unimportant detail that can be safely ignored.

In the past the press called candidates to order when they lied. Not any more.

Now the press is very democratic towards the truth; it gives each side equal time, even if one is brazenly lying.

Why is Boortz "one of the biggest dirtbags on the airwaves"? Does Rhandi Rhodes rank as a bigger dirtbag in your book?

I try to get my information from reputable sources with no axe to grind. Neither Boortz nor Rhodes qualifies. Being based in the Atlanta-area, I've listened to Boortz for years; on the other hand, I've heard Rhodes' show twice at the most.

Not discussing Palin's wanting to force her views on abortion an all American women is a topic that Boortz will always avoid.

We can discuss Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Protection Act, and his opposition to having a doctor present to provide care for babies that survived abortion attempts, positions that are too extreme even for NARAL to support.

No, we can't. I will discuss it honestly. Right-wingers will not.

The old "move the goal posts after the game" tactic you and adaydream regularly employ.

I do not know what games you play with other posters, but until you can back up your statement that I use this tactic, you simply remain another in a long string of dishonest right-wingers.

There is an objective truth based upon principles, but it remains out of reach for ideologues of either political extreme.

WhiteHawk - The fact remains, Sarah Palin has received and used earmarks that she so vehemently campaigned against.

Did Sarah Palin as Gov of Alaska accept the earmarked money? Was it spent in Alaska?

Tell me what parts of this is incorrect. < :-)

If she's claiming to be the sole "killer" of the bridge, then she's not telling the whole truth.

That's exactly how Republicans are painting her, conveniently excluding the fact that she was FOR the bridge.

Just because Obama and his team of thugs did it in his Illinois senate race doesn't mean I won't call you out for trying the same here.

What mainstream news source has the details on what Obama's team did in his first state senate race?

adaydream:

WhiteHawk - The fact remains, Sarah Palin has received and used earmarks that she so vehemently campaigned against.

Did Sarah Palin as Gov of Alaska accept the earmarked money? Was it spent in Alaska?

Tell me what parts of this is incorrect. < :-)

When a person gives testimony in court, they are sworn to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". You're not telling the whole truth, as I pointed out before. You're slicing off the truth that doesn't fit your agenda and tossing it aside, thereby invalidating the little bit of "truth" you have left. You're misrepresenting the very "truth" you put forth.

And OV is right, you're trying to bait me into agreeing with you. Won't work. You can continue misrepresenting Palin all you want, but I won't let you misrepresent me. Twist away, aday.

Regarding earmarks:

Each earmarked project can and should be argued on its merits. I could have seen supporting the Alaskan bridge project -- since the airport serving Ketchikan is on that island, though few people live there -- but not while the state of Alaska is flush with oil money.

But what no one should support is lying about the record. And certainly the Republicans have been doing that by implying that it was Palin who stopped the bridge project -- it wasn't her -- and never mentioning her support for it.

Another example of McCain-Palin-Republican dishonesty:

They like to mention that her husband is a union member. Of course, we all know that Republicans are as anti-union as a group of people can get, so why do they highlight it, if not to mislead other voters -- especially in the key states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania -- into thinking a McCain-Palin ticket would be sympathetic to the interests of unions?

yabits:

What mainstream news source has the details on what Obama's team did in his first state senate race?

The Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/article/480306

The Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story

Mainstream enough for you, Mr. "Moderate"?

You're not telling the whole truth, as I pointed out before. You're slicing off the truth that doesn't fit your agenda and tossing it aside, thereby invalidating the little bit of "truth" you have left. You're misrepresenting the very "truth" you put forth.

This describes the Republican method of promoting their candidates to a T. Claim Plain cut the bridge project, but leave it in the "fine print" for people to find out she was a supporter of it. Mention Palin's husband's union membership, but fail to include that you'd be against each and every piece of pro-union legislation to pass a Democratic Congress.

But what no one should support is lying about the record. And certainly the Republicans have been doing that by implying that it was Palin who stopped the bridge project -- it wasn't her -- and never mentioning her support for it.

Same for those who suggest that Palin's support of the bridge was pivotal, exclusive or undivided. When I heard her introductory speech, I knew that her comment was going to come back to bite her, but both sides are making too much of it.

Congress removed the requirement that the money be spent on the Bridge, leaving it to the state's discretion. It was Palin who actually decided no bridge would be built with that money, and that instead the money would go to other projects.

Jim Geraghty http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Oh and lookee, Betzee's clinging to the "book banning" myth is invalid. From that den of nasty right-wing partisanship, USA Today:

"Sarah Palin has never asked anyone to ban a book," Griffin said. "It shouldn't be surprising that the new mayor of a city that had seen recent protests over books and was in the process of re-evaluating the book-challenge policies at its library would ask the librarian what those policies were."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-Palin-book-ban_N.htm

Anne Kilkenny tries to get in her usual digs. Unsubstantiated, of course.

WhiteHawk:

I read both articles and failed to find anything that Obama's team did that was either illegal or "thuggish" in any way.

So what? They legally challenged petitions and signatures of their opponents. Their opponents had every right to do the same. Was Obama talking about "changing the game" back then? Or was it a result of tactics like that which helped influence him towards his ideals now?

Oh and lookee, Betzee's clinging to the "book banning" myth is invalid.

Poor WhiteHawk, clinging to half-truths again. ABC had a more extensive report on this, and their is plenty of fire underneath all that smoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_L-4Qr9TM

The fact that Palin soon fired the librarian and then was forced to reinstate her after the community uproar -- and Palin's later changing her church from the actively anti-gay one -- lends a LOT of creedence to Anne Kilkenny's account. Why would any mayor even ask a rhetorical question about removing certain titles from a public library collection?

"There was no way that I thought it was rhetorical," said Anne Kilkenny, who said she attended the meeting where Palin raised the issue but says she did not remember Palin's exact words.

And this is what WhiteHawk refers to as a "dig." The fact that the librarian lost her position a few weeks later and had to be reinstated -- and then reports that her job became very unpleasant under Palin -- lends creedence to the critics of Palin.

I don't know who the people are who are printing the false reports of the titles that Palin supposedly asked to have banned, but it is a known tactic to cover up a situation like the one involving then-Mayor Palin with a Big Lie. I certainly do not put it past the right-wingers to engage in such tactics.

yabits:

Was Obama talking about "changing the game" back then?

Was that goal post heavy when you moved it?

Poor WhiteHawk, clinging to half-truths again. ABC had a more extensive report on this, and their is plenty of fire underneath all that smoke.

Sorry, I can't get YouTube at work. Got a readable link?

and Palin's later changing her church from the actively anti-gay one

Maybe that's why she changed churches? Perhaps you should ask her instead of relying on Kilkenny for everything?

Why would any mayor even ask a rhetorical question about removing certain titles from a public library collection?

Clarification of library policy, as stated in one of the articles.

adaydream, the fact remains that your attempts to misrepresent Palin's record with earmarks was completely blown apart. Nice try to save face, but you helped bring yourself down.

Thanx WhiteHawk.

I think all the money received for the Bridge to No-Where is spent, so I guess it's a mute point.

Have a good day. < :-)

Was that goal post heavy when you moved it?

I didn't have to or want to move it. You set it up in the lying zone when you implied that Obama's "thugs" did something wrong in his first state senate race. If a person does something that is perfectly legal in his very FIRST campaign and later decides that the tactic is not for him, I'll cut him some slack.

On the other hand, firing a librarian for not being "cooperative" when the topic of book censorship is breached is beyond the pale. That truly is thuggish.

Clarification of library policy, as stated in one of the articles.

If you believe that's all that was, there's a bridge to nowhere that I'm sure Palin will sell you too. From the looks of things, it didn't appear that Palin accepted the answer on policy and went about trying to change it by changing the librarian. That is thuggish. Then again, this is how many hard-core right-wingers operate.

yabits:

This was not done by the "liberal left," but by a single individual. And it was decried by Democrats and Republicans alike. Smearing the entire Democratic Party with it is a sure sign of hatred.

Two DNC employees went through Michael Steele's trash, got his SS# and ran a credit check on him in an attempt to dig up dirt for the benefit of the DNC. You're trying to distance the entire DNC by claiming that the event was "decried by Democrats and Republicans alike", while simultaneously painting anyone who tries to smear the entire DNC over the event as a hater. Nice work, Mr. "Fair-and-Balanced".

Oh yeah, the outrage by every DNC politician, official and pundit was deafening. /sarcasm

Madverts:

Whitey - bud, you were an ardent bush supporter. Heh, it's more than amusing for an outsider like me to guffaw at the flip-flops as you know shrug off 8 years of disaterous mis-management, and shore up support through blind partisanship for a candidate the represents more of the same...

Bush let me down on some fronts by acting like a Democrat (amnesty for illegal aliens, increase in health care entitlements, not curbing the spending of congress). How is that an example of me flip-flopping?

I've listed time and again when McCain opposed Bush. I'm sure you've seen the posts by now. I'm tired of posting them every time someone regurgitates the lame "McSame" argument, only for my post to be unaswered and ignored (likey because none of the DNC volunteers can counter them) and the "McSame" chant to be repeated on yet another thread.

yabits:

So, you are calling a Obama a liar based on this kind of hearsay? From one of the biggest dirtbags on the airwaves?

Looks like Boortz read it at WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098190668515511.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary

My guess is that you'll call this guy (and anyone else who dares question Obama or the DNC) a dirtbag.

You set it up in the lying zone when you implied that Obama's "thugs" did something wrong in his first state senate race.

He could have run against them instead of having them disqualified. That's also perfectly legal and happens every year. He also wouldn't be accused of not earning his first office.

If a person does something that is perfectly legal in his very FIRST campaign and later decides that the tactic is not for him, I'll cut him some slack.

Hey, maybe he was reinventing himself. And apparently it still suits him, as pointed out earlier.

On the other hand, firing a librarian for not being "cooperative" when the topic of book censorship is breached is beyond the pale.

That's why the librarian was fired? Where did you get that?

That is thuggish. Then again, this is how many hard-core right-wingers operate.

Oh yeah, like trying to limit and/or silence free speech on talk radio. Wait, that's you guys.

The attempted smears of Palin by Obama's camp (both official and unofficial) have been coming so fast that websties have been setup to address the rumors. Here is an excerpt from one such site:

40. yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes, it was “rhetorical”, at least as was reported contemporaneously in 1996[1] ; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/

From FactCheck.org article titled "Sliming Palin":

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

The article covers lies being perpetrated against Palin with analysis of each.

Two DNC employees went through Michael Steele's trash, got his SS# and ran a credit check on him in an attempt to dig up dirt for the benefit of the DNC. You're trying to distance the entire DNC by claiming that the event was "decried by Democrats and Republicans alike", while simultaneously painting anyone who tries to smear the entire DNC over the event as a hater.

Yet another example of Republican dishonesty.

First of all, the incident involved two staffers of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and not the "DNC." The staffers did not go through Steele's trash; they found his SSN in an old court document while doing research, and wrongfully applied for his credit report. DSCC supervisors had no knowledge of the actions of these junior staffers -- and, as soon as they were informed by the junior staffers, they fired them and started an internal investigation. The DSCC also notified the FBI and apologized to Steele.

The DSCC acted properly even though these two young staffers did not. Your attempt to smear all Democrats by this is nothing less than scurrilous, yet all to typical of the right-wing haters.

WhiteHawk said:

Now the word is that Obama has sent dozens – who knows how many operatives – to Alaska to work 24/7 on digging up some dirt on Sarah Palin.

So, you needed someone to bring this to your attention? Wake up and smell the coffee! Every candidate of either party has done this with both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate since as far back as you can remember times two. Dang, get a clue before you post naive comments like that.

My guess is that you'll call this guy (and anyone else who dares question Obama or the DNC) a dirtbag.

Questioning is one thing. Leveling false accusations is quite another. It's a dirtbag who does that. I've got no problem whatsoever with RNC or DNC people checking out the records and backgrounds of the opposition. Just as long as they tell the whole story, which is what you failed to do with your attack on the DSCC and Mike Steele.

If Palin is as clean as Republicans would like us to believe, there will be no dirt to be found.

He could have run against them instead of having them disqualified. That's also perfectly legal and happens every year. He also wouldn't be accused of not earning his first office.

Obama wasn't the one with the power to disqualify those contenders. If they submitted legal petitions with proper signatures, they wouldn't have been disqualified. I am not saying this was practicing the highest ideals of politics; but it is a far cry from what you described as the actions of "thugs."

That's why the librarian was fired? Where did you get that?

It doesn't take a genius to connect those dots. She was fired because her political beliefs were opposed to the incoming mayor's. But a librarian should not be a political position, especially when the politician involved is one who is active with groups that endorse censorship.

Palin = Earmarks

Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state.

The bridge to nowhere was an earmark.

In a debate, Palin said she would fight for the earmark to build the bridge. McCain and others sought to divert those funds to help fund Hurricane Katrina recovery. That prompted a threat from Stevens to resign from the Senate for such discrimination against his state.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html

The NeoCons need to contact the Republican Party so they can sue the Seattle Times for liable. They can't; because these are the facts. You liars are busted again!

The Seattle Times originated as the Seattle Press-Times, a four-page newspaper founded in 1891.

There is plenty more; Please feel free to read the article.

Brought to you by the Republican Liars Club

Good Donkey, But, as we all know, the Seattle Press-Times MUST be a liberal rag. It's in Seattle for heaven's sakes. The lone honest repuclican laid out exactly why Seattle is not to be trusted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lu0mBbEqFs

Enjoy. ;-)

Taka

Taka

Thanks that was great. As a liberal I think I have spent a proper part of my day listening to the conservative point of view by watching that video. I never heard of the guy before but I will be watching many videos in the near future I am quite sure.

read it at WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098190668515511.html?mod=opinionjournalpolitical_diary

Yes indeed, straight from WhiteHawk's source. Here is the truth:

Mike Gehrke, the DNC's research chief, e-mails to say that Democratic staffers have not traveled en masse to Alaska to join the Sarah Palin hunt.

"Not a single person from DC or Chicago has traveled to Alaska to do research," he writes. Not a single Obama staffer, not a DNC staffer, not a hired gun, he says.

Local Democratic operatives are helping out, and Obama has a field office open, he said, but John Fund's report of an "army" of 30 officials being airlifted to Alaska are false.

Gehrke calls the above paragraph a "flat-out absolute fabrication. We have sent absolutely zero people."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/dncobama_operatives_flood_into.php

A guy Like Sen McCain is not going to be dishonest in his campaigning. He served our ntion with distincyion, and us patriotic vets will be voting for him.

Palin seems like a great young woman with wise ideas, and morals lacking in the Democrat guys.

Obama is using dirty tricks, he will be shunned by decent folk.

Wow Swifboatvet. Nothing wrong with voting how you see fit, but voting blindly for very simplistic reasons kinda reminds me of blind faith and blind patriotism. McCain is a vet, Yaay. He's been in a political office for 26 years, yaay. Now think, what is he going to do for the COUNTRY and its CITIZENS, and not just the select few.

You sound like you're not looking deeper to find out whats behind the mask. Some of the more recent vets are getting royally screwed after they've finished serving their country. Considering how much is spent for them to go TO war and how much they're taking away from those that have the fortunate ability to come back and find they can't get their lives back together because the funds to support them properly back into society is being taken away from them.

I agree the US is a great nation, but with the wrong people in control we get the situation we're in now as well as encouraging a bad global reputation. The old days are gone and our government needs to shape up.

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

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues - on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years. But there's another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern. I'm not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team's ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary. I'm talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts. And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country? What it says, I'd argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

pot - kettle - black

In response to Obama accuses republican rivals of dishonesty - sarah palin support the illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/General/palin-backs-americas-righteous-war/1270805.aspx - just what you all's children need, another BUSH - only minus everything.