When Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was interviewed by ABC's Charlie Gibson this week, she made a number of assertions that ABC itself found it necessary to fact-check.
Wow, imagine that, the media actually fact-checking something that a politician said! I want more of this and I want it now!
The specific lies: Palin denies ever having denied that global warming is caused by man; Palin asserts that other VPs never met a head of state. Click on the link above to read the entire article.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
This is what I hate about fucking politics. Why in the lead paragraph did they use the phrase "she made a number of assertions"? Now, gee, what was that number; why it was the number two. Now when a reader pressed for time just reads the lead paragraph they come away from the page with any "number" of ideas, that could be six lies or nine lies or hell maybe even fifteen lies. Why, oh why couldn't they have said she lied twice? Why, because it ain't as good a fucking story, that's why. And this is the reason I don't get my news from TV, NPR can be maddening enough!
And even though you have no incentive to be fair, csm, I will continue to reach for that goal and stick a pin in anything which irks me.
Do what you will, Bawdy. I do not wish to censor anyone's opinion. That said, you whine a lot about wanting all of the information in a headline. Sorry you had to actually read the article. Didn't mean to cause any undue pain.
By the way, the winds from Hurricane Ike are really picking up here.
You didn't get me, csm. I wasn't "whining" about getting all the information in the headline(it is actually called the lead paragraph); I was "whining" about how an author of a piece nuances you to believe something that isn't true. The author could have used the word "two" or "twice" when describing the number of lies Palin uttered, but no, it was "a number" of lies. Now I respect your desire not to be "fair" in your selection of the threads you post, but a journalist IS supposed to be fair and unbiased, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside along with non-partisanship, no?
"I do not wish to censor anyone's opinion."
The point is it is not supposed to be opinion and I am talking of both sides. I realize the conservative media are as bad or worse, but I think was have all agreed that FOX News is just entertainment anyway.
I know csm is all about making his party look pleasing but I’m not sure who is attempting to convince. Worst case scenario here, maybe, she changed her position, maybe. Isn't that what politicians do now?
This is the problem with the DNC. They spend their time on Palin when McCain is the candidate. I know she is a problem for them but the more they attack the better her numbers look. It will be their undoing. I have yet to hear the RNC spend anytime on Biden's foreign policy of sectionalizing the sovereign nation of Iraq and assigning land mass for people groups. He is not the top of the ticket and doesn’t feel worthy to make #2.
"maybe" she changed her position? heh.
what about the troopergate lies? they haven't even counted those.
thanks for the chuckle.
Um um um, NoBama still just doesn’t get it. Actually, I would bet McCain DOES know how to send email but why should he? Hopefully he is dealing with important issues. The essence of the ad is that McCain is old and old things just aren’t cool. But something that Obama obviously didn’t consider is that old people hold grudges, especially when a young elitist spits in their faces. These are the very people that will send him back to Illinois in November. Obama is the guy who couldn’t get the hugely hyped Magic Text Message on the Biden announcement right. I don’t see internet savvy as all that important. That is why we have IT departments. To set the record straight, McCain didn’t use his nam injuries as an excuse. I think he has simply ignored it. Good move.
Sen. Barack Obama has attempted to use the Arizona senator's voting record against him in statements like this:
Barack Obama (June 3): It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).
Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.
Is 95% "Significant"?
As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.
When doing so, they may wish to consider that Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007. That shouldn't be terribly surprising. Even the Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted with Bush 39 percent of the time last year, according to the way Congressional Quarterly rates the votes.
The McCain campaign points out that Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time.
Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.
That is not surprising. NoBama just throws out a meaningless stat as if it has real relevance. The question should be when did he vote with Bush and when did he vote against Bush. He also picks out the one year and deceitfully portrays it as a regular event. NoBama tends to provide only 1/2 the story or just votes present. That's change we can believe in. Ha Ha
needless to say, i don't get the same things when i read the article.
would you rather go with someone who voted 95% of the time with the loser last year, or someone who only voted with the loser 40% of the time? seems simple enough.
also, no one can argue that mccain won't retain bush's economic policies. look at his advisors.
Seriously Corey you need to realize the game the politicians play. The President has almost zero effect on the economy. The congress impacts the economy more than they do. The most effective thing they can do is to let the economy work with just a few regulations to maintain fair play. The economy is meant to fluctuate and it is healthy to do so.
Anyone else here think we may have lost csm to Ike?
seriously, mouse. you need to acknowledge the power of presidential appointment (federal reserve, treasury, etc), as well as the power of the presidential veto. downplaying a presidents economic significance might be politically expedient, but it is not entirely accurate.
furthermore, my squeaky friend, we have radically different views of what the markets are going through right now. where you see a "healthy fluctuation", i see the disastrous results of 28 years of deregulation...deregulation that republicans like john mccain and phil gramm have supported whole-heartedly.
a few years ago, it was gramm's deregulation legislation that opened the door for the enron debacle. these days, one has only to look at the 1999 gramm-leach-bliley act for a cause.
the gramm-leach-bliley act, for those keeping score at home, essentially repealed the 1933 glass-steagall act, thus eliminating the depression-era walls between between banking, investment, and insurance that made this current economic crisis possible.
mouse, you claim that the president has zero effect on the economy. this is not quite true. john mccain's chief financial advisor, phil gramm, will likely be his pick for secretary of the treasury, should mccain win in november. i would argue that the u.s. economy will unravel entirely should mccain/gramm take the reins.
hey ike, give us back our friend!
i'm gonna pretend csm's being a good liberal and donating his efforts to rebuilding his community and helping the less fortunate in ike's wake.
damned hurricanes.
I have posted before that the President gets too much credit for economic performance, whether good or bad. With the "Reagan deficits", people seem to forget the Democratic Congress was in force for both of his terms and Congress spends the money, the President just suggests how it should be spent(which I do not agree with, the President is only to enforce Congress' laws and uphold the Constitution). Now it is true Reagan's pick of Volker as the Fed President was an excellent choice for the times, but Congress signed off on all of Reagan's wish list.
Clinton, as I have posted many times, had little to do with the boom during his term. Most in the know will tell you the productivity of the American worker(aided by computers and the Internet)skyrocketed during his term. If anything the conservative fiscal Republican Congress early in Clinton's reign had as much to do with the boom by pressuring Clinton into entitlement reform and doing their own cost cutting. Unfortunately for the taxpayer, the power of Washington got to the Republicans and they became enamoured the Treasury's money spigot and the feeling of "the green" in the palms of their hands.
Now as I get older, I realize unfettered markets left to their own devices will be dangerous to the citizenry, because markets do not have a conscience and have a very narrow view of things, make money. But capitalism IS the best system we know of at this time. And capitalism works best for everybody when financial power is distributed fairly democratically. Spread it around, in other words. This is not what I am seeing now with all this high level dealmaking in Washington. I realize these are razor edge times, but the people calling for so much government meddling(and again, considering these times this is probably the most prudent course)fail to see the government wasn't doing it's job to begin with. They had the regulations already in place to keep some of this from happening, but turned their heads. Most blame the President and probably for good reason. But where was Congress? Where were the Republicans before 2006? Where were the Democrats after 2006? Is it possible the Democrats were going to let the shit hit the fan to insure a Presidential victory in 2008? If this is so, and I am just throwing this out there, then the Democrats are as culpable as any Republican.
And one last scary point, if Freddie and Fannie and AIG are too big to fail, how much taxpayer money will be barfed up to bail out the new Bank of America(now that Merril Lynch and Countrywide are in the BofA stable)when it is time. I shudder to think.
somehow, bawdy, i knew you'd jump on that one.
since we've danced this number before, please let me summarize my views on the matter.
i feel the president gets the ultimate blame/credit for economic issues because the buck has to stop somewhere. does the legislative branch deserve some credit/blame? of course. but in the end, the president signs these bills into law.
for example: clinton gets credit for enacting welfare reform because he signed the bill. similarly, bubba gets the blame for signing the gramm-leach-bliley act into law. at least, from me he does.
none of this is to say we shouldn't praise or blame the legislature for their part in this game. the republicans did force clinton's hand on welfare reform, just as phil gramm and john mccain have championed deregulation for decades.
i think we're just describing two sides of the same coin here. since the three branches share power, they also share credit and/or blame for how they use said power. the executive gets first dibs on it though, since they have the final say.
all that being said, can anyone tell me that mccain wouldn't get full credit/blame for appointing phil "it's a mental recession" gramm or carly "golden parachute" fiorina to head the u.s. treasury dept? and if either one of those nincompoops were appointed, can anyone argue that wouldn't be more of the same neocon economics that got us here in the first place?
also bawdy, please allow me to comment on your "freddie, fanny and aig" remarks.
i share your disdain for bailouts. i'm willing to overlook freddie & fannie, for two reasons: they are quasi-goverment entities and 50% of all u.s. home mortgages are tied up in 'em. bear-stearns and aig, they bother me more.
bear-stearns, at the time, seemed acceptable, but only because it was the only bailout on the table. in retrospect, i wish we'd just let them sink.
aig is only in this mess because they insured (read: placed bets on) questionable mortgages. no mercy from me on aig. of course, no one asks me, do they?
bank of america? please. if merill lynch and countrywide end up being viewed as bad investments, why should we cover their lousy butts? we shouldn't. not saying we won't, but we shouldn't. investment firms shouldn't get bailouts. nor should insurance firms, or auto manufacturers, or airlines. or farmers.
one more thing comes to mind here. the two remaining investment firms, goldman sachs and morgan stanley, are in need of a buying out, or at least a propping up of sorts. should those deals turn sour, are we to bail them out also? argh.
i dislike corporate welfare about as much as i dislike deregulation. maybe that's because i view dereg as an underlying cause of corp welfare.
(bawdy, this rant wasn't aimed at you, just so ya know. your comments just made me think (which is good!), and the frustration made me want to vent.
I'll get back to you for the main arguement later, but what is "neocon economics"? I thought that was a foreign policy philosophy descriptor not an economic one. Or are you lumping all shithead Republican philosophies together.
There are always signs to look for that signal poisoning by partisan rhetoric. There is the myth of the Clinton surplus which is easily debunked and there is the myth the president controls the economy.
Wall Street is not understood by Washington and for that matter most Americans. Sure, the politicians attempt to blame each other when in reality neither is an authority on the economy. What about the Boards for not keeping tabs on neither their CEOs nor holding them responsible for poor decision? Who is doing the auditing of these firms and missing the obvious signs? More regulation is not what can help but revamped stealth legislation is the real answer. The economy always does worse when Feds get involved. I agree with Pelosi that bail outs are the wrong answer and add to that “Surplus”.
Bail outs will just continue to encourage poor and risky investments and more regulation will just continue to make London the center of the investment world. That will hurt our economy in a huge way. That brings about another myth that NY is still the financial capital when it’s probably only the 4th most relevant. Third at best.
In McCain’s defense in 2005 he did warn about Fannie Mae/Mac impending crash and attempted to push through congress some legislation but was blocked by the Democrats. No surprise here, Barney Frank resides over the Fannies. Of course this was caused by the D/R congresses over the many years pushing for sub prime lending so that all Americans could enjoy the benefits of owning a home. Sounds good, but is not financially sound.
Every decade has an economic crisis and every decade believes it is the worst thing ever but they always correct themselves. NoBama shows signs of panic or political opportunism. I’m not sure which but neither is good for a president.
But I will share the center piece of fixing Wall Street and minimizing the falls. Raise margin requirements requiring customers put up 50% or even more of the price of stocks deterred speculation. The fix is quite reasonable and my market strategist I believe would agree. Raise the inherent cost of speculation and you will radically deter the speculation. Greenspan could have pushed for this a long time ago and the dot com bubble could have also been avoided.
Blast those neocon liberals!
I've been staying a little low lately as I understand some Muslims believe Micky and his friends should be killed.
Of course we'll be bailing out the other investment groups! We'll be required to keep bailing until it looks like things are no longer dire.
The whole credit/blame thing is (imho) the biggest ego boost/drawback of being potus.
"i feel the president gets the ultimate blame/credit for economic issues because the buck has to stop somewhere."
This is where I differ from you a little, corey. To me it isn't because the buck has to stop somewhere, but more the laziness of the media and the citizenry. Americans are getting pretty comfortable with having a very, very powerful President. Maybe this is because it is all we know since this has been the case starting with the T. Roosevelt/W. Wilson era, but this doesn't make it right. People feel natural going to that father-figure(king)because it is easier than petitioning all those Congressmen/women.
As far as the deregulation/ regulation dichotomy, we as a people need to use logic and reason to guide us and not just let the federal government do our thinking for us. Deregulation isn't inherently a bad thing. Regulation isn't inherently a bad thing. When going overboard in either direction you get problems. As an example of deregulation as a good thing I will give you the airline industry as Exhibit A. Air travel, until just recently because of oil prices, was something many more people could afford and consequently leisure travel came into it's own. Before that only the rich could afford it and most of us were outside looking in.
I just think more thought and less political speech is the answer.
Anony,
I am in agreement with much of your post. Raising the margin requirement would go a long way to getting the speculation out of investing and I would go so far as to say Greenspan has his fingerprints all over this sub prime debacle too(I am getting tired of hearing the word "crisis" anymore; the word has lost most of it's meaning to me).
neo-cons have domestic policy, foreign policy, economic, etc.
they have an agenda in various arenas, i s'pose.
perhaps foreign policy is just their most popular song. or sum'thin.
wiki neo con link
Thanks for the link, corey. After reading most of the Wiki entry it seems to me that the Neocon phenomenom started as an domestic philosophy opposed to the "Far Left" counterculture of the 60's, but morphed into a global strategy to spread "democracy" throughout the world. This strategy and the most recent history of Neocons must be the reason I thought of it as a foreign policy philosophy. Because of their "elitist" stance(I found their use of religion to be VERY interesting, kinda justifies my "narcotic for the masses" theory)and their fondness for central control(kinda ironic considering their staunch anti-Communist tendencies)this is a truly reprehensible platform. Democracy at any cost and an end no matter whatever means is just plain wrong.
I try to be a simple person. I like simple ideas. Though not anti-scholarship and not distrustful of intellectuals by any means, anytime it takes volumes to get your point across I instinctually get suspicious. I believe in freedom. Democracy plays a part in freedom, but it is not the end; it is a means to the end, which is freedom. Thanks again.
Yes, folks, Ike did some damage here. We were without power for about 5 days and had some damage to fencing and some downed trees, but everyone is OK and the juice is back on... Probably won't be posting here again regularly for another few days as we take care of some things and try to get back to some sanity...
...that said, anyone hear McCain say that the economy is fundametally sound? The guy is a deluded. Also heard him answer a question about Spain by talking about Latin America. Either his hearing is gone or he is bordering on batshit crazy!
I'm glad you're ok, csm! Good luck in getting things straightened out and back to a semblance of normal. We'll still be here when you're ready, pal.
whew. very glad to hear that everyone's okay. i kept watching news coverage from houston waiting for an interview with a guy named "csm", but never saw one..
of course, i never doubted (oh no), but ya should've seen ol' bawdy, blubbering like a lil girly-scot..
(that was a joke, bawdy. don't hurt me!)
Also, going way back in time to Bawdy's first comments... just because I highlighted 2 lies, does not mean that the article does not uncover more. Using the term "several" instead of using a number is not misleading, no matter what you may think Bawdy.
Post a Comment