McCain's Lies: over the BS Threshold?
Sep. 13th, 2008 11:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyLies, damned lies, and statistics! (To quote Twain.)
I am a trained political wonk. I could be in some state Legislature right now, tolerating endless rounds of committee and staff meetings and going out to luxury dinners with flaming asshats to make minor political capital. (I do just enough of this in my present job to remind me how much I HATE it with a flaming passion. Give me pepper spray in the face every day and twice on Sundays instead.)
LIES
There is a level of lies, BS and distortion which is simply accepted as normal in politics. For example, the oft cited and completely bogus claim that the "mainstream media" is leftist. Yes, they are centrist and shamelessly kowtow to both corporations and the government. However, if you want to see LEFTIST media, go visit Indymedia for your local area. I'll wait.
Political discourse in America occupies a very narrow spectrum compared to most of the rest of the world. The Republicrat party (or the Demopublicans if you prefer) has achieved consensus on many issues, including the destruction of the American middle class.
However, the McCain campaign is beginning to tell so many lies that they are exceeding the normal lie and cheat tolerance level.
"McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry As Distortions" New York Times
Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.
A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.”
Mr. Rogers: THE TRUTH IS NOT AN OPINION. I do not want two people who clearly believe that the truth is whatever they declare it is, to be in control of the world's most powerful nation and our powerful military and nuclear weapons arsenal.
Here's a BBC analysis of the two candidates. You won't see this in conventional American media.
Excerpts:
McCain on Iraq: Voted for 2003 invasion and backed Bush troop escalation. Had said US forces should remain until Iraq is able to defend itself, but now predicts under his presidency most would have withdrawn by 2013.
Obama on Iraq: Opposed the war in Iraq from the outset and says there is "no military solution". Opposed "surge" strategy. Backs phased withdrawal of US forces - with all troops out of combat operations within 16 months of taking office.
McCain on abortion: Says the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortions - Roe v Wade - should be overturned. Would appoint sympathetic new judges and aid state efforts to boost adoption.
Obama on abortion: Speaking at a Democratic debate in April 2007, Mr Obama said he trusted women to make their own choices on abortion "in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy".
DAMNED LIES
Even more amusing to an old political wonk is this article in Slate.com "Lies, Damned Lies, and Barack Obama or Why isn't Obama stretching the truth more often?"
It's a fair question. Why stick to the high road when the opponent is lipsticking parts of your pig best left unmentioned in a PG rated post?
Judging political lies is a bit like trying to evaluate bad American Idol performances; we agree that they all kind of suck, but we can still have endless fights about which ones suck the least.
Some of McCain's recent claims, though, are the William Hungs of political lies: so heroically deceptive that anyone not blinded by partisanship feels the urge to cover his ears.
. . . The McCain camp's other sin is one of repetition: They keep saying things that have been proved untrue.
So far, McCain has seen little blowback from lying. Polls show that he's perceived as more "honest and trustworthy" than Obama and that the public believes his claim that Obama would raise taxes on the middle class.
Other useful resources:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/
http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
Particular attention should be paid to http://www.issues2000.org/John_McCain.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
STATISTICS
Now for the promised statistics. My training in these matters is: FOLLOW THE MONEY. Who votes is almost irrelevant, especially with Premier / Pinnacle Election Systems (cough DIEBOLD cough) doing the counting.
Who spends money to support the campaigns (and expects entree afterwards) is much more interesting to consider.
Disclaimer: "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."
Who backs McCain by donations? see here
Merrill Lynch; AT&T Inc; Blank Rome LLP; Credit Suisse Group; Greenberg Traurig LLP; PricewaterhouseCoopers; US Government; Bank of America; Wachovia Corp; Lehman Brothers; FedEx Corp; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; US Army; Bear Stearns; Pinnacle West Capital
Who backs Obama by donations? see here
University of California; Harvard University; Google Inc; National Amusements Inc ; Microsoft Corp; Sidley Austin LLP; Moveon.org; Skadden, Arps et al; Time Warner; Wilmerhale Llp; Latham & Watkins; Jones Day; University of Chicago; Stanford University
Who supports BOTH (i.e. appear on BOTH lists as prominent donors?):
Goldman Sachs; Citigroup Inc; JPMorgan Chase & Co; UBS AG; Morgan Stanley
Trying not to make too much stew from one oyster, you can see that the Corporate World strongly favors McCain but is smart enough to hedge their bets.
Summary: McCain is lying as fast as the lipstick will let him; Obama refuses to descend to his level; and if you're in the middle class, stop pretending to yourself that McCain will do anything for you but four more years of the McSame.
Higher taxes, higher gas prices, looting of the economy, and just possibly taking your son (or daughter) to fight Four More Wars. (Military manpower is beyond the scope of this post; let's just say that volunteers won't be enough if we're going to invade Iran.)
There used to be a term for the guy who would knock on your door, take 30% of your stuff and your son for his army. We called him King and back in the 1770s we threw his army off the continent. Do we really want King McCain?
I am a trained political wonk. I could be in some state Legislature right now, tolerating endless rounds of committee and staff meetings and going out to luxury dinners with flaming asshats to make minor political capital. (I do just enough of this in my present job to remind me how much I HATE it with a flaming passion. Give me pepper spray in the face every day and twice on Sundays instead.)
LIES
There is a level of lies, BS and distortion which is simply accepted as normal in politics. For example, the oft cited and completely bogus claim that the "mainstream media" is leftist. Yes, they are centrist and shamelessly kowtow to both corporations and the government. However, if you want to see LEFTIST media, go visit Indymedia for your local area. I'll wait.
Political discourse in America occupies a very narrow spectrum compared to most of the rest of the world. The Republicrat party (or the Demopublicans if you prefer) has achieved consensus on many issues, including the destruction of the American middle class.
However, the McCain campaign is beginning to tell so many lies that they are exceeding the normal lie and cheat tolerance level.
"McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry As Distortions" New York Times
Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.
A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.”
Mr. Rogers: THE TRUTH IS NOT AN OPINION. I do not want two people who clearly believe that the truth is whatever they declare it is, to be in control of the world's most powerful nation and our powerful military and nuclear weapons arsenal.
Here's a BBC analysis of the two candidates. You won't see this in conventional American media.
Excerpts:
McCain on Iraq: Voted for 2003 invasion and backed Bush troop escalation. Had said US forces should remain until Iraq is able to defend itself, but now predicts under his presidency most would have withdrawn by 2013.
Obama on Iraq: Opposed the war in Iraq from the outset and says there is "no military solution". Opposed "surge" strategy. Backs phased withdrawal of US forces - with all troops out of combat operations within 16 months of taking office.
McCain on abortion: Says the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortions - Roe v Wade - should be overturned. Would appoint sympathetic new judges and aid state efforts to boost adoption.
Obama on abortion: Speaking at a Democratic debate in April 2007, Mr Obama said he trusted women to make their own choices on abortion "in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy".
DAMNED LIES
Even more amusing to an old political wonk is this article in Slate.com "Lies, Damned Lies, and Barack Obama or Why isn't Obama stretching the truth more often?"
It's a fair question. Why stick to the high road when the opponent is lipsticking parts of your pig best left unmentioned in a PG rated post?
Judging political lies is a bit like trying to evaluate bad American Idol performances; we agree that they all kind of suck, but we can still have endless fights about which ones suck the least.
Some of McCain's recent claims, though, are the William Hungs of political lies: so heroically deceptive that anyone not blinded by partisanship feels the urge to cover his ears.
. . . The McCain camp's other sin is one of repetition: They keep saying things that have been proved untrue.
So far, McCain has seen little blowback from lying. Polls show that he's perceived as more "honest and trustworthy" than Obama and that the public believes his claim that Obama would raise taxes on the middle class.
Other useful resources:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/
http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
Particular attention should be paid to http://www.issues2000.org/John_McCain.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
STATISTICS
Now for the promised statistics. My training in these matters is: FOLLOW THE MONEY. Who votes is almost irrelevant, especially with Premier / Pinnacle Election Systems (cough DIEBOLD cough) doing the counting.
Who spends money to support the campaigns (and expects entree afterwards) is much more interesting to consider.
Disclaimer: "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."
Who backs McCain by donations? see here
Merrill Lynch; AT&T Inc; Blank Rome LLP; Credit Suisse Group; Greenberg Traurig LLP; PricewaterhouseCoopers; US Government; Bank of America; Wachovia Corp; Lehman Brothers; FedEx Corp; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; US Army; Bear Stearns; Pinnacle West Capital
Who backs Obama by donations? see here
University of California; Harvard University; Google Inc; National Amusements Inc ; Microsoft Corp; Sidley Austin LLP; Moveon.org; Skadden, Arps et al; Time Warner; Wilmerhale Llp; Latham & Watkins; Jones Day; University of Chicago; Stanford University
Who supports BOTH (i.e. appear on BOTH lists as prominent donors?):
Goldman Sachs; Citigroup Inc; JPMorgan Chase & Co; UBS AG; Morgan Stanley
Trying not to make too much stew from one oyster, you can see that the Corporate World strongly favors McCain but is smart enough to hedge their bets.
Summary: McCain is lying as fast as the lipstick will let him; Obama refuses to descend to his level; and if you're in the middle class, stop pretending to yourself that McCain will do anything for you but four more years of the McSame.
Higher taxes, higher gas prices, looting of the economy, and just possibly taking your son (or daughter) to fight Four More Wars. (Military manpower is beyond the scope of this post; let's just say that volunteers won't be enough if we're going to invade Iran.)
There used to be a term for the guy who would knock on your door, take 30% of your stuff and your son for his army. We called him King and back in the 1770s we threw his army off the continent. Do we really want King McCain?
