Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Calling John McCain a Liar
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
A very powerful piece:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842030,00.html John McCain and the Lying Game By Joe Klein Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2008 Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. You might well ask, What has McCain done to deserve this? What unwritten rules did he break? Are his transgressions of degree or of kind? Almost every politician stretches the truth. We journalists try to point out the exaggerations and criticize them, then let the voters decide. When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth — Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government — but McCain's untruth illuminates a general policy direction, which is sketchy but sort of within the bounds. (Obama's plan would increase government regulation of the drug and insurance industries.) Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends. McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics. Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions. This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin — out of pique, I believe — questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President. The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign. |
Anonymous
| thanks for posting - John McCain makes me sick - you can see the hunger for power in his eyes and I'm glad that people are finally refocusing on him and not Palin. (who's of course a disaster all on her own) |
Anonymous
| When I look at McCain, I see someone exhibiting discomfort and unease. He never seems natural; always like he's restraining himself or something. It's just weird. I wonder if he'll just keep getting confused, people will keep pointing it out, and he will just one day blow his top. He seems annoyed and indignant so much, I wonder if during one of the debates he will just say something so wrong, or so bizarre--without filter and spin, I wonder. |
Anonymous
I'm looking for information on this. A friend told me he's running an item on his blog saying that the bill Obama voted for included this sentence: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." I can't get hold of him to find out where he found this and I have spotty internet access today, for some reason, so I can't search the web except veeeerrrry sloooooowly. Does anyone have the text of the bill? If that sentence is in the bill, then the fake McCain ad was not a complete smear -- and I need to retract something about McCain that I put out publicly. I like to be accurate in my criticisms, even if Joe Klein doesn't! (The McCain ad didn't run on TV.) |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
Here is the Illinois Senate page with the Bill's status (note, there were a few amendments): http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0099&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=734&SessionID=3&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=93 Full text is here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0099&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session= I'm not sure what you think you got wrong, but Byron York is claiming the sentence you quote means that McCain's ad was correct. Sadly, Marc Ambinder seems to have swallowed it. However, the key words are "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education". Remember that "comprehensive sex education" is not normally taught to kindergartners and this language does not force it to be. The language simply means that if a comprehensive sex education class is taught, then the class must include instruction about the prevention of STDs. It does not say that anyone must be taught comprehensive sex education. |
Anonymous
|
this appears to be the text:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0099&GAID=3&LegID=734& I think this article does a fair job of fact checking http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259900 It seems to me that the overall goal of the k-12 family life education program was to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease, reduce pregnancies and protect children from predators. The bill does state that the classes should be "age apropriate". Unfortunately the bill does not spell out which lessons are appropriate in early elementary school. So I can see how someone could read this bill and decide that it meant that kindergarteners could be taught all the things that were spelled out for the entire age range k-12. And I can't actually see anything in the bill that would prohibit teaching kindergarteners, say, abut sexually transmitted diseases and borth control. Except that very few people wuld consider that age-appropriate. |
Anonymous
Thanks. I think I got something wrong in a piece I wrote -- I was perhaps a slightly inaccurate in my criticism of McCain, though the central premise was right -- have to go back and check. If I did get it wrong, I want to be upfront about it. Thanks again. Don't know what it up with my connection today, but Google is not standing me in good stead. |
Anonymous
And I also can't type today. I seem to be typing in some kind of bizarre slang -- "what it up," etc. Thanks again to both of you. |
Anonymous
What a quaint old-fashioned attitude... are you Amish by any chance? 
|
Anonymous
| Wish Joy Behar had admitted she was wrong when she attacked McCain on national television. Truth be told, I had needed to fix my voting registration (I had moved) and was lazy about it..Then I saw "The View" and got so angry that I drove to the library and quickly sent in my form. FYI-Obama tried for many smears on his own--number on saying that McCain considered rich people who made over 5 mil--I saw him say that on Rick Warren's forum and he was saying that in a joking manner and then said "I have a feeling the Democrats are going to throw this in my face"--next thing you know..a commercial saying just that..that John McCain thinks rich is over 5 mil. |