September 15, 2008

"What's happened to John McCain? He's running the sleaziest ads ever. Truly vile."

"Dishonest smears that he repeats, even after it's been exposed as a lie. Truth be damned. A disgraceful, dishonorable campaign... It seems deception is all he has left."

That's the voiceover on this new Obama ad:



A list of thoughts:

1. Are viewers expected to get the references? I wasn't sure what the "sleaziest ads ever," the "smears," and the "lie" refer to, and I've been following the campaigning very closely and posting and analyzing ads.

2. It seems likely that the viewer is just supposed to accept the assertion that there have been sleaziest ads, smears, and a lie, mainly because the names of newspapers appear on screen next to quotes.

3. I think quite a few voters, like me, will feel very skeptical about generic assertions and quotes taken out of context. We American voters are competent ad watchers, and I don't think this will work on us.

4. This ad screams its negativity. The ominous music. The string of very ugly words: sleaziest... vile ... dishonest smears ... lie ... damned ... disgraceful ... dishonorable ... deception. And yet the ad seeks to inspire outrage about McCain's negativity. But we're not watching McCain's ads. The example of sleaziness is the one before our eyes now.

5. The ad has a title: "Honor." And the voiceover at one point says "dishonorable." Honor is a key McCain theme, one that reminds us of McCain's military service. Does Obama -- who tells us he once considered joining the military -- think he can rip away McCain's honor by quoting the Washington Post? McCain has nothing left but deception? Why would we be ready to accept that message? This ad puts a lot of stock in the viewer's reverence for mainstream media, but don't most Americans think the media are trying to help Obama?

6. The McCain ads I can call to mind are disarmingly funny. This Obama ad is completely devoid of humor or charm. It's got a cheap "nutroots" feeling to it.

7. "Dishonest smears that he repeats, even after it's been exposed as a lie." "Smears" is plural. What's the antecedent for "it's"? I thought Obama's campaign was largely built on his brilliant speaking ability. You've got to write the adscript in solid English -- especially when you're talking about deception and tearing quotes out of context. Otherwise, you are the one we will be suspicious of.

8. I hate lies, but I also hate the overuse of the word "lie." Don't say lie if you just mean exaggeration or saying one thing and leaving out something else. Now, what exactly was the lie? And speaking of saying one thing and leaving out something else, Obama left out what the supposed lies and smears are. Using "lie" the way this ad uses lie, is this ad a lie?

9. Obama got the message that he needs to attack McCain and not Palin.

10. This ad strikes me as a big whine: Hey, no fair. Your ads work better than mine. Quit it. Or I'm telling.

535 comments:

1 – 200 of 535   Newer›   Newest»
Expat(ish) said...

I've been feeling for a long time that the BHO campaign can be summarized thus(ly): wah, wah, wah.

Which is a nice change from his primary attitude of: neener, neener, neener.

-XC

Zachary Paul Sire said...

You say you've been following the campaign but you don't know what the lies and smears are?

How about this ad saying Palin stopped the bridge? This is just one of many examples. Either you're not paying attention, or...omg...you're not being very neutral.

madawaskan said...

What would be interesting is if this ad is run on television and in what states.

I live in a western "swing" state and the only McCain ad I am seeing is the Maverick one. The Obama campaign is running-the Lobbyist.

So-this-the media as the authority ad-might be used in Blue States to drive up the popular vote.

Is anyone actually seeing these ads being paid for in their states?

Which ads are they running?

MarylandMan said...

Can someone, anyone, without insults, histrionics or references to something Clinton or Obama have ever done, explain to me how Palin is not lying when she states that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere? We've all seen the videotape from the 2006 Alaska Governor debate where she openly supports it. How is that not a lie?

Donn said...

I just posted this comment on another thread, and it states why this line of attack is a loser for the Obama campaign.

Mickey Kaus:

Lecturing the public on what's 'true" and what's a "lie" (when the truth isn't 100% clear) plays into some of the worst stereotypes about liberals--that they are preachy know-it-alls hiding their political motives behind a veneer of objectivity and respectability.

Donn said...

ZPS and all others who continue to state that Palin did not stop the BTN.

For goodness sakes....The AK Democratic Party said on THEIR website that "Sarah Palin stopped the BTN."

Terri said...

If someone tells a lie, produce the proof. Don't just throw around accusations of lying. What is the lie? How is it a lie? Be specific and produce evidence of the lie.

"Liar liar pants on fire" stopped working on me about 35 years ago.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Oh, and you might want to read this one blog, it's called JAC.

He's got a nice post on the McCain lies.

John Stodder said...

Sarah Palin is lying about her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere.

She is lying, in precisely the same way Biden is lying about his opposition to the Iraq War. He actually favors the Iraq war.

What? Well, he does. Using the same logic as the charge against Palin, Biden is a vile, desperate liar. He voted to authorize the war.

What was that? Oh, you're saying he changed his mind about the war? How is that an excuse?

Biden supported the war, therefore he supports the war, therefore he's a liar when he says he doesn't support the war.

Just like Palin, who supported the Bridge to Nowhere. She's trying to get out of it by saying that later on she opposed the bridge and in fact used her power as governor to end the project. But that won't fly. Once you say you're in favor of something, it's dishonest, vile, depraved and a new low in American politics to change your mind. Nope, you're stuck with your original position.

Biden and Palin. Liars.

AlphaLiberal said...

Shorter Ann Althouse:

"John McCain can do no wrong."

Original Mike said...

Given the increasing public realization of the political leanings of the press, I'm guessing this won't hurt McCain so much as Obama.

My favorite quote was "Exposed as a lie: CBS News". Do these people have no self-awareness?

madawaskan said...

Actually the ad the Obama campaign is running here is called-

It's Over

link

Here is a link to the McCain Maverick ad-it's titled-

The Original Mavericks

Link

Chip Ahoy said...

Ha ha ha. You almost tricked me into watching another ad.

Expect the one gone vanished to pop in and insist, "Lie, lie, lie." In their alternate reality it is a lie. But you have to go through the looking glass and take in the entire environment to get it.

Like the SNL Palin opening skit, it's most hilarious within the alternate universe, outside that universe, not so much.

Dan Karipides said...

MarylandMan: That is the point of one of Ann's comments. Palin originally supported the bridge. Then she helped kill it. All this is documented.

Is it a 'lie' to say she killed it? She never said 'I was always against it'. Are you claiming she always supported the bridge? Isn't that a lie too, then?

Isn't one of the biggest criticisms of Bush that he doesn't every, every change his mind no matter what new facts come to light?

When you jump up and down and scream "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" as this ad does, it had better be something huge. Something everyone would mark as an egregious violation.

I understand you don't like Palin (and by association, I'm guessing you don't like conservatives/Republicans in general). But in order to win a campaign, you have to convince the general population.

I think this ad makes people on the far left say "Hell yeah!" but the question you have to ask is how effective is it with independent people in Colorado or New Mexico?

knox said...

I hate lies, but I also hate the overuse of the word "lie."?

Remember BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED. The word "lie" has been overused for a long, long time now. The definition has been tweaked to describe someone who disagrees politically with democrats.

AlphaLiberal said...

Ann, I think you're main interest is in your web traffic and you get that traffic from your patrons (such as Glenn Reynolds) on the right.

Here you are accusing Dems of whining after embracing nearly every McCain-Palin whine to come down the pike. You "see no evil" from the Republican ticket even while mainstream reporters are figuring out they're serial liars.

This is all good for your traffic, which is mainly from the right. I'm sure your patron Reynolds appreciates it.

As far as displaying excerpts from these articles, it's a common way ads are done. With with the web, people can quickly find the articles, themselves.

I get the sense you've been ignoring the groundswell of criticism for McCain and keeping your attention focused on NRO, WSJ, Drudge, LGF, etc.

And if you think McCain ads are funny, you're really a mean-spirited person.

Peter V. Bella said...

"I am Rahm Emauel and I approve these tactics."

The man who put ruthlessness back into the Democratic Party is helping Obama fight tough. He makes Karl Rove look like an amateur.

Dan Karipides said...

Sorry for the typo. "Every, every" to "ever, ever". I wish you could edit comments, sometimes.

miller said...

Sniffs the liberal:

"Not only is McCain a LIAR, you are a heartless rethuglican if you think McCain's ads are funny."

So tell me again how that Dale Carnegie course worked out for you.

Spread Eagle said...

When you're watching your candidacy exposed as puffed up hot gas and going poof before your very eyes ya gotta do something. This is it.

chuck b. said...

Complaints about dishonest campaign ads invariably sound like so much whining to me.

It's anything goes, as far as I'm concerned. People want their guy to win. They want him to do whatever it takes. So let 'em do it!

If a campaign thinks false or misleading ads are in its best interest, fine. If people want to complain and criticize that, fine.

Do Obama supporters think Putin and the mullahs and whoever inherits North Korea are going to issue fair and accurate criticisms of the United States? Do they think they can hold our enemies accountable by complaining about dishonesty?

Do they have any clue how the world actually works?

Alex said...

Shorter AlphaLiberal: I'm a partisan Democrat hack.

Donn said...

Dan,

Excellent points!

Peter V. Bella said...

We've all seen the videotape from the 2006 Alaska Governor debate where she openly supports it. How is that not a lie?

The final cost of the bridge was way out of line with the initial projections. The federal money came no where near covering all the costs. Palin changed her mind and used the money for infrastructure.

This has been reported, but the true believers keep calling it a lie.

Synova said...

Yeeah.

Quoting newspapers to prove McCain has "lied" is going to really bring over the uncommitted votes and shake those planning to vote for McCain.

BTW... this "voted with Bush 90% of the time" thing...

What does this refer to? Because mostly Bush didn't vote, not as president. Duh. And McCain has a reputation for not going with the party on issues and I recall noise about him publicly disagreeing with Bush on some major issues concerning the war in Iraq.

So!

What is the context of McCain's statement? I realize that Obama is trying really hard to present McCain as Bush Mark Two only worse... but the man hardly had a reputation as a sycophant. (Other than the old "anyone who doesn't call the war illegal and demand immediate withdrawal is in obvious goose-step mode with the evil BushHitler" that caught up our dear, essentially liberal hostess, Ann.)

veni vidi vici said...

Well, the Obama campaign's been projecting for awhile; this only adds conclusive proof.

To claims of Team Obama being somehow "better than" Team McCain on this subject, let me just begin with "100 years' war in Iraq", and the ad and harping on that theme that occupied nearly a week back a few months ago.

The Obama campaign is going to have some trouble convincing the not-already-true-believers that this ad and its ilk aren't just attempts to put lipstick on Team Obama's own piggishness.


But Jesus Hussein Christ, people, we have three senators running in this campaign and you expect honesty? Yeesh; wake up.

Ann Althouse said...

So the text of this ad is supposed to refer to Sarah Palin and the bridge to nowhere? That explanation doesn't fit the tone and text of this ad (which isn't about Palin at all). Is that all you've got? How could that justify this ad?!!!! That's crazy talk.

Peter V. Bella said...

AlphaLiberal said...
Shorter Ann Althouse:

"John McCain can do no wrong."


Short Alphaliberal:
Obama, messiah.

Alex said...

Ann - at this point the left wing is so unhinged that they are just making shit up.

Synova said...

Is voting with Bush 90% of the time similar to saying we should stay in Iraq for 100 years?

The thing is... Obama has always been doing this misrepresentation and anyone paying attention with the barest tendency to check out Obama's claims can think of *at least* the "100 years in Iraq" example.

So not only does Obama sound whiny... the excuse that he's only responding to McNasty doesn't fly either.

Not only does he whine... he makes excuses.

miller said...

It's as if repeating the lie over and over again makes it valuable. The true believers always believed in the lie. The hope is that the swaying middle might think "Hey, I've heard this over and over again. It might be true."

I'm surprised they aren't still repeating the lie about the library banning books.

Did that fall too flat?

Bambi is a liar based upon what he's said in this campaign. "I will take public funds." "I will debate McCain." "I will filibuster FISA"

Instead, he ran away from his promise on public financing, he ran away from John McCain in debates, and he ran away from the Constitution on FISA.

However, he is at least a liberal, so he gets a pass on his lies.

Palin, on the other hand, changed her mind, but it's LIES LIES LIES.

chickenlittle said...

Take a quick look at Sullivan's and Marshall's sites this week. Then do a simple page search on the words lie, liar, lying, etc.

At this point in time, Sullivan and and Marshall are taking their cues from Julius Streicher: defame and smear, do whatever it takes to get the liar meme to stick. They might as well publish in Fraktur type font.

But the Schtick won't stick this time around, at least not for very long.

Doyle said...

Your claim that American voters are competent ad watchers is at odds with your claim that they won't understand what the "sleaziest campaign ever" stuff refers to.

miller said...

Sleazy is saying "John McCain wants a 100 year war."

That's sleazy.

Ken said...

To MarylandMan: because she did in the end stop it. She did not oppose it from the get-go, that is true. But she did say "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge.

nrn312 said...

So the text of this ad is supposed to refer to Sarah Palin and the bridge to nowhere? That explanation doesn't fit the tone and text of this ad (which isn't about Palin at all). Is that all you've got? How could that justify this ad?!!!! That's crazy talk.

More shorter Althouse: "Do not question my cruel neutrality!"

dbp said...

The add quotes from a bunch of well-known liberal publications. Aren't the people who value the opinions from those newspapers and magazines already all voting for Obama?

miller said...

Shorter leftist meme:

Thinking is so hard. Vote Bambi.

veni vidi vici said...

The shift to this tactic reeks of flailing to come up with a "won't be bullied" approach in the endgame of the election in order to appease his financiers and donors, who have been wondering when he's going to "get tough".

The problem is, the campaign's execution (both on the stump and in media) is so hamhanded that it risks backfiring because they don't appear to have figured out how to play this game yet.

The serious 'tell' is going to be the fundraising tally for September, since the conventions came along at the end of August and this month people are "living with" the results.

Michael_H said...

ZPS - Please post a photo of the bridge. Can't do? That's because it was not built. The Governor said "don't build it."

And don't refer me to someone else's blog to find what you call "McCain's Lies". Post the exact text of what McCain said, and the proof that it was a lie.

Please explain how a Democrat changing his or her mind is called "growth" and how a Republican does the same thing it's called a "lie". Examples: Hillary and Kerry, to name two, voting for the Iraq war, then announcing that they oppose it.

Don't presume to know Ann Althouse's motives for how she manages her blog. To accuse Ann of some motive which you cannot prove is to set yourself up for the mother of all de-nuttings.

No. Wait. Please continue to trash Ann Althouse. Some of us who have been here a while will prepare the popcorn.....

nrn312 said...

But she did say "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge.

Those grapes were sour anyway.

Synova said...

This is sort of a "bridge to nowhere" random Swiftboat tangent but...

Isn't this "was for it before I was against it" thing being twisted entirely around?

I'm working from memory here but it seems to me that what Kerry was responding to when he made that statement was accusations that he was against the war in Iraq and couldn't be trusted to wage it properly... while he was presenting himself as having military creds and a will to win and was going to fight the war properly.

So to try to build that a little bit more he pointed out that he *had* voted for the war... was for it before he was against it.

Am I mistaken on this?

So making fun of someone who is using "I was for this previously" in that way made a lot of sense.

Being for the bridge to nowhere and then changing one's mind is the straight forward sort of accepting that one was wrong, or that the situation has changed.

Do we REALLY want leaders who won't change their minds?

nrn312 said...

Shorter rightist meme:

Thinking is for elitists. Vote Caribou Barbie!

Roger J. said...

Micky Kaus has some excellent thoughts about what Obama should not be doing. They would do well to read it.

Re the ad itself: at one time the word lie has some impact. Fortunately for the republicans it has been so overused and missused that is sting is gone. It just an expression.

And the use of the word honor at least in my opinion, not a good choice to apply to John McCain. Whether or not McCain is personally an honorable man or not is really irrelevant short of some big time well documented scandal (a la John Edwards), the public sees him as a POW, and 40 million people watched his acceptance speech. He has cornered the "honor" cachet in the public's mind, I think.

This ad will make the partisans happy; but I dont see it helping Obama among the undecideds. We'll see what the polling data looks like later this week.

Alex said...

The "thanks but no thanks" is just a saying. Did she literally have to tell those words to some politician verbatim, or relate the concept? This kind of parsing is so useless and unproductive.

former law student said...

The McCain ads I can call to mind are disarmingly funny.

Oh yeah. The one where he implied Obama wanted to teach five year olds how to put on condoms was a laugh riot.

Hoosier Daddy said...

We've all seen the videotape from the 2006 Alaska Governor debate where she openly supports it. How is that not a lie?

There is substantial video and transcripts out there from Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton who claimed unequivocally that Saddam Hussein possessed or was working on weapons of mass destruction prior to the war. So does this mean they were all lying just like Bush?

Or did they change thier minds as the facts changed?

L. E. Lee said...

McCain is running ads saying that Obama supports sex education for kindergartners. In reality Obama voted for a bill that teach young school age children about how to avoid sexual predators. McCain's ad is a dispictable distortion and he has been called on it including by David Brooks.

The more this campaign is about the economy and the question "are you better off now than you were eight years ago?" the better Obama will do.

Clearly Republicans know that they can not win on the issues and are going to try to swift boat Obama. In these seriously difficult economic times I don't believe the American people are going to fall for it again.

Peter V. Bella said...

Here you are accusing Dems of whining...

The whole campaign has been about whining. The Dems have evolved into the party of whiners.

And if you think McCain ads are funny, you're really a mean-spirited person.

I think they are funny too. Being mean spirited has nothing to do with it.

Revenant said...

Looks like that wasn't quite the response to Obama's ad that Alpha was clamoring for in the other thread. :)

miller said...

Well, I laughed.

On the shorter side, this is the mark of a campaign in desperation.

Just last week they were all about making fun of McCain for not typing his e-mails.

Then that turned out to be ... unfortunate.

They're trying the LIES LIES LIES campaign because they're hoping no one in the media helpfully points out that Bambi has been lying from Day One. "I certainly don't think a first term senator should run for president."

Google the video. It's pretty good.

And Google Biden's evaluation of Bambi before he (Bambi) picked Biden.

And Google Hillary's evaluation of Bambi before he ignored her as a VP candidate.

It seems that Bambi likes to call others liars when he is the one that started the trend.

Just a few things he's said:

1. I'll take public money
2. I'll debate John McCain
3. I'll filibuster FISA

Unfortunately, the media is the willing accomplice. I doubt that any of the main networks will point out this foolish consistency on his part.

Bambi seems to hate liars. Does he hate himself?

knox said...

dbp

Yes, to people like you and me that's blatantly obvious. But they are simply too insulated to realize it.

Ann Althouse said...

"And if you think McCain ads are funny, you're really a mean-spirited person."

Mommy, Ann is mean!

Synova said...

"Do not question my cruel neutrality!"

Ya know. Neutral doesn't mean "balanced"... like when someone does something stupid, needing to go and find something stupid from the other side. I hate when the news media does this. It's really annoying. Probably a good example is the "draft scare" of 2004... the media would interview equally on both sides and never bother to actually examine the issue and thus never revealed that the fretting mother interviewed about her poor babies who might face a draft was a long time liberal activist or that the rumors themselves had no basis whatsoever.

NEUTRALITY would be in reporting that the rumors had no basis whatsoever.

Because that was the undisguised truth and could have been reported... but it would have made those spreading the rumors and getting the vapours over them, look bad.

Making one side look bad is not evidence of a lack of neutrality!

Neutrality looks at what is really there, no matter who is made to look bad by revealing it.

veni vidi vici said...

Synova,
I think lots of the mileage in the Kerry quote was that he was actually on videotape speaking those words. It was a great Marx Bros. moment that the Bush campaign didn't waste any time exploiting to its fullest. Palin doesn't have that liability, so at worst this is just a "flip-flop".

I look forward to the Dems trying harder to get traction with the "Bridge to Nowhere" meme, since at some point McCain would obviously respond with the fact of the Dem ticket's votes on appropriating the earmark, and then the Coburn amendment that would've taken the earmarked funds and applied them to Katrina relief.

And they say George Bush "doesn't care about black people"! The Bridge issue is a net loser for them. With Biden on the ticket, it's almost guaranteed that they'll overplay it (if they haven't already). Some people just can't help themselves, after all.

holdfast said...

John Stodder said...
Sarah Palin is lying about her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere.

She is lying, in precisely the same way Biden is lying about his opposition to the Iraq War. He actually favors the Iraq war...

...Biden supported the war, therefore he supports the war, therefore he's a liar when he says he doesn't support the war.


Except, you know, that nobody died not building that bridge. Anyway, Palin is not squeaky-clean on earmarks, but if you look at the numbers, she has been trying to waean Alaska off of that particular Federal teat. Alaska is also a bit sui generis in that the Feds make a boatload off Alaska's natural resources, while at the same time the harsh climate and very low population density makes transportation infrastructure particularly expensive on a per capita basis. The bet solution would be for the Feds to take less in the first place and then Alaska to tax what it needs to take care of itself. I think Palin's increase in oil production royalties and reduction of earmark requests were steps in that direction, but I'll admit it is too nuanced to make a good campaing spot.

At least she taxes her husband's employer more - unlike BHO who got earmarks for his wife's employer, right before she got a massive raise.

save_the_rustbelt said...

McCain is running ads stating that Obama and the Democrats wil cause - such horrors - BUDGET DEFICITS!

Now I'm a Republican but this is just friggin' ridiculous, given the massive deficits piled up by Dubya.

McCain is going to cut spending? Oh right.

Too many consultants, too many media gurus, too little truth.

Michael_H said...

Here's a great ad. Have you seen it? It was produced by the guy who appears in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8&eurl=http://www.mccainblogette.com/

Alex said...

The only thing I'm willing to admit is that Palin has misrepresented just how much she opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere". When she's giving speeches at rallies she's simply saying "I said thanks but no thanks", instead of the more nuanced "I supported initially but then turned it down when the costs went up too much".

knox said...

It's an election, they're supposed to be tearing each other apart. Obama needs to stop whining and man up. I can't think even one truly sleazy ad so far--on either side. They both exaggerate and try to slime each other, so what: that's the way it works.

The only truly offensive ad I think I've ever seen is the one about hate crimes that associated Bush with the death of James Byrd.

FRANCESCA said...

former law student said...
The McCain ads I can call to mind are disarmingly funny.
Oh yeah. The one where he implied Obama wanted to teach five year olds how to put on condoms was a laugh riot.

That was one of the most disgusting ads I've ever seen- not funny at all. I was appalled to think McCain put his stamp of approval on such a "sleazy" ad.

Synova said...

"In these seriously difficult economic times I don't believe the American people are going to fall for it again."

When I was in Sr. High School the unemployment rate was 14% one quarter. I remember that because I also remember the total despair at a time we were supposed to be looking to our futures.

This may explain my tendency to be optimistic now, and scoff at those who think the unemployment rates or interest rates are obscene. They just don't have anything in their experience to add perspective.

Alex said...

FRANCESCA - most parents would not want their child to be given whatever "sex ed" Obama was planning in that class. That's McCain's point. It's a values thing.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Oh, there was also the time last Friday when McCain, on The View, said that Palin never requested any earmarks as Alaska's governor, which we all know is not true. It was about as clear a lie as you can get.

Alex said...

zach - McCain looked confused about the earmark issue. I don't believe he was deliberately lying. Hopefully he won't repeat that gaffe again. Even Palin has never stated that she eliminated earmarks.

Michael_H said...

"The only thing I'm willing to admit is that Palin has misrepresented just how much she opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere"".

Hey, remember when Hillary was running for Senate as a citizen of New York? You know, when she said she had been a life-long Yankees fan, even though she grew up in .....Chicago.

Or when she said she was named after Sir Edmund Hilary, even though he didn't actually climb Mt. Everest until she was about 8 years old....

No misrepresentation there, right? Oh wait. She's a Dem and they are expected to lie and misrepresent, so she gets a pass.

miller said...

Do you think McCain actually LIED? Or did he just misspeak?

Bambi referred last week to his "Muslim faith." I don't think he's a crypto-muslim. I think he just misspoke.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh, there was also the time last Friday when McCain, on The View, said that Palin never requested any earmarks as Alaska's governor, which we all know is not true. It was about as clear a lie as you can get.

Oh and how about the time Obama said he'd stick with public financing until such time he realized it wasn't to his advantage.

former law student said...

Can some staunch McCainite explain to me what the hell does "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks" mean? Thanks for the money, no thanks for the bridge? Rather than give up a dime of federal funding, Palin's administration is still building the access road on "Nowhere" Island to where the bridge would have gone, according to the Anchorage Daily News:

Meanwhile, Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

Synova said...

Did she request earmarks?

Earmarks are a particular sort of way to get federal funding. If she's just asked for money.. that's asking for money.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Everyone Freder/Alpha/garage et al; start with the lies meme, I get the mental image of Frau Farbissima screaming LIES!!! ALL LIES!!!!

miller said...

Bambi said he'd filibuster the FISA bill.

Then he folded.

Was the bill changed? Or did he change?

Changing one's mind might just be a pragmatic thing.

But leftists, go ahead and keep calling Palin and McCain LIARS. Because that's such an effective campaign tool

Here's another hint: Keep making fun of Palin for being a redneck mom. You know how well that works to keep people from becoming more loyal to her.

And make fun of her for keeping her kids. And make fun of her for her daughter's pregnancy.

Those are all winning issues.

Please, keep it up.

Synova said...

FLS,

You're lobbying your state to return all highway funds... yes?

George said...

May I interrupt for a moment to ask that all of us, as Americans, pause on September 19th, this Friday, to commemorate National Talk Like a Pirate Day.

Arrr, I'm Barrrack Obama. Ahoy, me buxom beauties, I am approving of this here advertisement. Truth be damned for that McSwine. Disgraceful. Blow me down. Dishonest bilge rat smears. Shiver me timbers. Dishonorable. Truly vile, me hearties. Keel haul the swabbie. Tip tip pup pup.

j said...

The McCain ads are playful.

Obama has to do better than this to win. There are two themes he keeps hitting on that I think are completely ineffective (and they are ineffective regardless of which side is using them.)

1) Talking about lobbyists and special interests. Both sides do this but i just think they are a waste of time. I'm not really sure the average voter knows enough or cares about what a lobbyist does. These ads just never seem to work.

2) Saying your opponent lies. I think voters expect this. Its old hat by now.

I've just noticed that these are some of the themes the obama campaign hits on over and over again and i just don't think they work for anybody.

You'd think that the obama camp would be a bit wary of citing so many media sources in an add given how the public has reacted against the media and its treatment of Palin. I'm not saying the media was right or wrong, I'm just looking at the numbers.

So I think the obama camp would be better off sending their own message than talking about lobbyists or lies.

miller said...

To j;

SHHHHH!

Don't give the Democrat Party any ideas that their plans aren't working!

We want them to think that fighting the last campaign is the key to winning this campaign!

Peter V. Bella said...

Michael_H,

Sheesh, you sure ask an aweful damn lot. Those people cannot think that fast.

John Z. said...

The nutroots use the word "liar" the same way my ex-wife did, right after our divorce. It made her feel good to use that word, I think. It allowed her to wallow in her hatred of me. So if I said I would pick up the kids at 7:00, and got there at 7:15, I was a liar. Not tardy, or a poor judge of traffic, but a liar.

Henry said...

Is McCain still running the sex-education ad? That's the only one I've heard of that sounds truly sleazy. Some of the others are clearly deceptive, but in the run-of-the-mill way that all campaign materials are deceptive.

So, boy, is this Obama ad pathetic.

And it's clearly deceptive. Superlatives always are (even if you're quoting).

former law student said...

You're lobbying your state to return all highway funds... yes?

My Governor never claimed he told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks." Nor is he building an access road to the Bridge to Nowhere that he claims he rejected.

Campaign slogan:

Sarah Palin. Building an on-ramp to the Bridge to Nowhere.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Can some staunch McCainite explain to me what the hell does "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks" mean? Thanks for the money, no thanks for the bridge?

The earmark, which directed how the money was to be used, was for the bridge. The earmark which directed the funding was subsequently removed by Congress. The money was not. As an analogy try this. I decide to give my daughter $20,000 dollars for a brand new convertible. She is very excited about it. Then I say, well you don't need to get the convertible but here is the money anyway, spend it how you wish. She sees the light and rather than get the car, says thanks but no thanks for the car I'd rather use the money to go to college. That clear enough?

Rather than give up a dime of federal funding, Palin's administration is still building the access road on "Nowhere" Island to where the bridge would have gone,

This is not news. After the earmark was removed, Palin is on record stating that access to the island was needed but that the bridge was not the way to go.

John Stodder said...

Yeah, gotta say, this ad is a misfire by the Obama campaign. It feeds into the observation that they know how to run a campaign in a liberal precinct, where CBS News' disapproval might count for something, but they don't know how to talk to anyone outside that cocoon.

This also marks about the 10th day in a row where the Obama campaign's primary message is "oh no she didn't oppose the Bridge to Nowhere." This is a serious strategic blunder. Obama isn't running against Palin, and it diminishes him by making it seem so.

The one thing I will give them: They've convinced the press that every story about Palin and every interview with the McCain campaign should only be about the Bridge to Nowhere and how dare they claim she opposed it. However, I think the public isn't reacting the way they hoped to this almost obsessive media focus on what is at worst a matter of what John Kerry would call "nuance."

My theory is: There are some in the highest Democratic Party circles who can tolerate a McCain win, but not a Palin ascension. If McCain wins but in the process Palin emerges as a Quayle-like figure, a dead politician walking who will be VP but is otherwise neutered, that's a less bad outcome than Obama winning but Palin emerging as a future star.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton would be one such. But I think it goes beyond her. There is no way the Democratic Party wants the first woman president to be anything but a D. Whether it's Hillary or whoever, the strong feminist contingent within the party will not stand for Palin becoming president, ever, but especially not until after a Democratic woman has gained the office.

miller said...

Oh, and here's another LIE by Bambi:

"I will immediately pull our troops out of Iraq."

and to the Iraqis (secretly, of course)

"Please don't support a plan to get the troops out immediately."

So, which statement was true? Does Bambi want the troops out, or does he want them to stay?

Either way, isn't he a LIAR?

former law student said...

2) Saying your opponent lies. I think voters expect this. Its old hat by now.

I never expected to hear it from McCain. I guess he absorbed the lessons of 2000 all too well.

Original Mike said...

Thanks for the reminder George! I'll be in the canoe all day Friday. Perfect opportunity to Talk Like a Pirate. (Arrrh, matey!)

PJ said...

McCain is running ads saying that Obama supports sex education for kindergartners. In reality Obama voted for a bill that teach young school age children about how to avoid sexual predators.

I have seen it asserted a lot that this bill was about sexual predators, but then I have also seen purported quotations from the text of the legislation that contained no limitations to any particular purpose other than a vague requirement that the teaching be "age appropriate." Has anyone gotten to the bottom of that? What did the legislation that Obama supported actually say? Quotes, not characterizations.

vbspurs said...

MarylandMan wrote:

We've all seen the videotape from the 2006 Alaska Governor debate where she openly supports it. How is that not a lie?

The problem is the term used. It's not lying. She reassessed the situation once she got into power.

Palin campaigned for the Governorship suggesting she wouldn't oppose a Bridge to Nowhere, then the pet project Pork King Senator Stevens. She was doing so as a reformer of government, but to reform government, first you must get in a position of power.

She was not terribly in favour of it. Her reaction was tepid towards it during the campaign, but those who wish to suggest she's lying, suggest she was all gung-ho about it.

I'd like to elicit a quote of hers from anyone who says differently -- along the lines of "I love the Bridge to Nowhere! It's the best! I am totally in favour of it!".

So, when she actually got into the Governor's mansion, she axed the project (which both Biden and Obama had voted for ...twice).

So as Governor, she did indeed say, thank but no thanks, to the bridge.

I'm really not sure why people do not understand that, except that you want to "get" her, and suggest a Kerry flip-flop.

But since flip-flop didn't resonate that first day (I noticed that back then, real-time), and "lies" is more Bushian/Cheneyian, the Left then went with that.

There's nothing more than they want but to connote her with Cheney especially, and Bush by inference.

Democrats: Still playing with a 9/28 playbook.

Cheers,
Victoria

erniecu73 said...

Shorter AlphaLiberal:

...

miller said...

They're still smarting from the last licking Bush gave them in 2004, and are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the 2004 election.

Fine. They are not repeating them.

However, they are acting as if the 2008 election is simply a re-hash of the 2004 election.

I would advise them to re-think that strategy, but as I am not in favor of the Democrat Party being given access to anything more powerful than a pair of blunt scissors, I will hope they continue on their merry 2004 ways.

vbspurs said...

. Are viewers expected to get the references? I wasn't sure what the "sleaziest ads ever," the "smears," and the "lie" refer to, and I've been following the campaigning very closely and posting and analyzing ads.

It is very vague, and leaves it to the perceptions of each viewer.

Maybe Team Obama are trying to suggest that "all politicians lie", and since most people think that, and know Obama stands for "Change", that they will not paint Obama with that brush even if he's doing so to McCain.

This is a weak, whiny ad. It's worse than the lipstick on a pig ad by Team McCain, which if not a mistake, was not a good idea.

But at least that included a logical narrative of events you could follow.

This? It could be anything.

Cheers,
Victoria

George said...

Arrriginal Mike!

Arrrr!

Drink with me, man. Let us drink to the devil in the deep blue sea.

Arrrr!

stumble crash

Aaaaarrrrr....

Roger J. said...

I would certainly hope Team Obama keeps pouring the heat on like this. I just dont see these working (unless, of course, Team O is doing this to show contributors he is taking the gloves off). I can only think they are focus grouping their ads with the moonbat wing of the party.

j said...

Right, but mccain has gotten around the lying issues with a playfulness and humor that we rarely see in these ads.

Obama uses the word "offensive" way too much. Like when someone says something he doesnt like, its always "offensive" to him. I also think people don't want to hear that word, people want to see you fire back. So fire back and quit being offended. That would be my advice.

I just don't think the word "offensive" really resonates with people who are looking for a leader.

Firing back doesn't necessarily mean being aggressive either. It means setting your own agenda.

Trying to be neutral here....

former law student said...

You want SB 99 from the 93rd Illinois General Assembly. It lists the subject matter of the sex education program, which was to cover students from K thru 12th grade, instead of grades 6 thru 12. It does not segment the curriculum by year, relying on the term "age and developmentally appropriate."

Obama's committee sent the bill to the Senate, which let it die at the end of the term without having ever voted on it.

vbspurs said...

Roger, it struck me that this ad was for his base. Rather like the lipstick on a pig allusion.

Those internal poll numbers must be really really bad.

Cheers,
Victoria

miller said...

The ad makes me think "those Democrats don't like McCain."

But if I were a Democrat (which I haven't been since I became an adult), I wouldn't be swayed by this.

If I were a conservative, I wouldn't be swayed by this.

If I were an independent - would I be swayed by this? "Gosh, Marge, the Democrats are accusing John McCain of lying. Now I have no recourse but to Vote Stupid in 2008."

Is that how the thinking goes?

former law student said...

a playfulness and humor

Are we talking about the same ads? Can someone dissect one for me, pointing out the playfulness and the humor?

John Stodder said...

Can some staunch McCainite explain to me what the hell does "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks" mean?

It means no to the earmark, yes to federal transportation dollars, which all states get.

The problem with earmarks is that they give force of law to specific expenditures that don't get reviewed for the merits in public. The suspicion, therefore, is that the earmark is a literal gift for a special interest -- say, a contractor, or a payback to a jurisdiction for a local official's support. The earmark ties the hands of the state receiving it, which might have other priorities for their annual infusion of transportation dollars. Perhaps there is a dangerous stretch of highway that the state wants to fix. That's #1 on the state's list and it will take up all the money to be allotted to that state. The earmarker is trying to circumvent the state's ranking of projects to special-express the money to a particular project which might not even be on the list.

What Palin did in saying no to the bridge but yes to the money is assert local control over money the state was going to get either way. That's a good thing because it defeats the purpose of earmarking, which is more to serve the legislator's interests than his/her home state's.

To play gotcha by saying Palin wanted federal money Alaska misses the whole point of the porkbusters campaign. The idea is to reduce the power of individual members of congress to both raid the treasury and circumvent normal funding processes.

erniecu73 said...

The ad with definitely resonate with the trust-fund "artsie" crowd. But, what about the rest of the country? At this point in the game, is it wise to run something like it?

rhhardin said...

Limbaugh played a cut of Obama saying that in a contest of who runs the sleaziest ads, he wins.

Obama is not strong on semantics.

miller said...

"...point-by-point..."

No, actually.

You can't explain humor.

You either have a funny bone or you do not.

j said...

a playfulness and humor

Are we talking about the same ads? Can someone dissect one for me, pointing out the playfulness and the humor?


Right. i guess you were too busy being offended.

miller said...

Now you want to hear funny? How about Bambi making fun of McCain's war injuries because McCain couldn't type his own e-mails?

You got to admit, those Democrats are wild crazy party animals when it comes to making fun of people.

John Stodder said...

pointing out the playfulness and the humor?

The brilliant "he's a celebrity" ads playfully showed that a lot of Obama's supporters are just trend-followers who aren't paying attention to what Obama is actually proposing, implying that if they really listened to him instead of staring into his eyes, they wouldn't all be so supportive.

That was a light-hearted way to pry Obama's independent support away from him. Which, you at least have to admit this, has happened.

miller said...

It's like the Eternal Grievance Theatre Party (a.k.a. the modern Democrat Party) can't imagine that the rest of the sane people aren't as offended as they are.

miller said...

Lindsay Lohan as the morality police for the Democrat Party?

Sheer genius.

Jim said...

Synova -

The difference between the Kerry "for it before he was against it" and the Palin situation is that Kerry was trying to run on the "for it" part of the statement.

He was trying to show his pro-military bonafides saying that he was for funding the troops in Iraq before he actually voted against funding them while trying to claim that he really was for funding them.

The difference between this and Palin's situation is that there was only one change of mind from the theory of supporting the bridge during her campaign to practice of actually killing off the bridge as governor and she is asking voters to judge her based on the strength of her ultimate decision. On the other hand, Kerry was trying to claim credit for a position he took in theory before he changed his mind and decided to vote against it in practice.

That's why he got tagged as a "flip-flopper." It wasn't that he changed his mind, it was that he wanted take credit for having, at one time or another, supported both sides of the debate.

This is why the label sticks to Obama but not to McCain/Palin. Both have changed their positions on certain issues (Obama clearly more than McCain, but that's irrelevant to this particular point), but while McCain asks to be judged on his final position while Obama also wants credit for having at one time taken both sides of the issue.

When talking to his base, he wants credit for being anti-Bush on a variety of issues while actually voting *for* those issues. Then he turns around and wants people to believe that he represents a sea-change from Bush on the issues. In trying to have it both ways, he winds up having shown no leadership nor conviction on any issue.

who, me? said...

Summary of the logic of the ad.

tony said...

"The McCain ads I can call to mind are disarmingly funny."

you think this obama ad is sleazy, and you don't see where mccain's camp lies, but those mccain ads! like, the one where the clearly "upper class" white woman is calling young, uppity, black obama "disrespectful"...those aren't sleazy, they're "disarmingly funny."

why did i ever enjoy this blog?

miller said...

My theory is that conservative comedy writers can't get jobs in Hollywood, so they earn a living by working on Democrats' campaign committees, "helping" them target their audience with hipster jokey fun.

Because this is pure comedy gold.

Rich B said...

The only thing in that ad which isn't an opinion is the 90% voting with Bush, which has been already shot full of holes (e.g., Bush doesn't have a vote, many votes are unanimous, Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time). Otherwise, you have to believe the claims already in order to believe them. I don't think this is going to do much for them - I hope they got it cheap.

Masterasia said...

@AlphaLiberal
"Ann, I think you're main interest is in your web traffic and you get that traffic from your patrons (such as Glenn Reynolds) on the right."

What a whiner!!! It seems nobody reads your blog but yourself. You are just envious of Ann's active reader base.

One thing for sure AlphaLiberal is no alpha-male. :P

It is not to late to improve your own blog so you could have ads too. :)

(P.S.: I support the democratic ticket)

miller said...

You probably enjoyed this blog until your candidate started plummeting in the polls, and this blog didn't get a case of the oh-noes.

Michael_H said...

George - Yarrr back at you, ya slimey squid.

About the bridge to nowhere issue - doesn't this bounce back badly on the Obama campaign?

The ads and articles and commentary that accuse Palin of flip-flopping her support of the project infer that she shouldn't have done so, that the better thing to do would have been to take the money and use it to build an expensive, useless project.

So the Obama position would be 'she should have taken the money and spent it on the bridge.'

How can supporting the needless spending of taxpayer money make Obama appear to be the agent of change? Wouldn't that be the same old way things have always been done, not a 'change'?

It looks like the Obama talking points writers are being too cute by half. Again.

erniecu73 said...

tony, please do enlighten us on what we must consider sleaze coming from the Republican campaign?

It will be most appreciated.

Thanks,

miller said...

Republican writers working for the Bambi campaign.

I rest my case.

The Absolute Advantage said...

Talk about negative... check out CNN's take on the "McCain Swift boat" I bet I'd be a little "volatile" too if I was being poked with a bamboo stick for 18 hours a day....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/mccain-camp-accuses-obama-camp-of-swift-boat-style-attack/#comments

And seriously CNN, even if you can't report with journalistic integrity can you at least report with some semblance of editorial accuracy? Is it Phillip "Butler" or "Carter"?...

Tim said...

Andrew Sullivan crossed over into total self-parody this weekend. (I think his blog is now performance art.) Clearly he is dealing with his anxiety about Obama's flagging performance by acting out like this. And ironically, he's hurting -- rather than helping -- his cause, as you rightly point out.

If you read back in his archives, it's Sarah Palin that made him crack. You can almost hear the sound. Why? Because his inner conservative, the tiny part that is still left and which adored Margaret Thatcher, is attracted to Palin and what she represents (in fact, if this were 2000, Sullivan would say very different things about an equivalent candidacy).

Mark my words -- you can measure Sullivan's morale by the shrillness of his posts. The worse they get, the lower his morale...

PatCA said...

Another dumb ad--"Me and the MSM think McCain is sleazy!"

miller said...

If I might make a helpful suggestion to Bambi's campaign: you should show that you're TOUGH! It's time to get in a tank with a helmet and show that you're TOUGH!

Really. It could not hurt you worse than your current campaign.

Peter V. Bella said...

Doyle said...
Your claim that American voters are competent ad watchers is at odds with your claim that they won't understand what the "sleaziest campaign ever" stuff refers to.

We are competent ad watchers. I do not know what country you are from, but as an American I can speak with competence that I understand the sleaziest campaign ever and what it refers to. Barak Obama. He is running the sleaziest campaign ever.

Peter V. Bella said...

McCain's ad is a dispictable distortion and he has been called on it including by David Brooks.

David Brooks is a despicable distortion.

former law student said...

John S., I liked your explanation. But why didn't Palin say, "I told Congress I'd take the money but I wouldn't build the bridge?" Or a more honest, "We Alaskans don't want that bridge bad enough to pay our half."

Obviously full candor would not have made much of a soundbite.

Jim said...

l.e. lee -

Are you still repeating the lie that the "comprehensive sex education" (quote from the legislation itself - try reading the actual document instead of just parroting the DNC talking points) for kindergartners was only about protecting them from sexual predators? That particular group of lies was thoroughly debunked in at least 2 previous threads that I know of, yet here you are still repeating it. Why?

Do you really think it's in Obama's best interests to remind people over and over again about how Obama tried to mandate family morality decisions? How many independent voters exactly do you think you're winning over with this line of argument?

From your statist point of view, this may seem like a good idea, but the vast majority of the American public thinks there's too much government, not too little. Reminding them just how far Obama wants government to intrude into their private and family lives is only going to push them to the voting booth...for McCain...

The Absolute Advantage said...

Sorry, here's the

link
.

Rich B said...

In a related matter, I think Joe Biden should be attacking whoever took that photo on Drudge. I keep seeing the ghost of Al Sharpton by way of Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein.

Peter V. Bella said...

Now you want to hear funny? How about Bambi making fun of McCain's war injuries because McCain couldn't type his own e-mails?

You sir are a LIAR. Obama was not making fun of McCains war injuries. It is all a big LIE.

Obama was merely and tastefully pointing out his own qualifications for President over McCain.

Obama can tie his own shoes.

Obama can put his clothes on all by himself; thanks to Garanimals.

Obama can play hoops.

Obama can sit on his ass and surf the internet while on the public pay roll.

Stop lying about Barak Obama.

vbspurs said...

Summary of the logic of the ad.

LOL! You beat Maureen Dowd to it.

sonicfrog said...

OMG - Breaking news - a politician not being truthful on the campaign trail!!! The horror!!!!

McCain has been loose and fast with some facts, some silly slip-ups, some flat out lies. But unless you've been following every twist and turn of the McCain campaign, you wouldn't know what they are.

Because of this, I give this ad an "F". Include examples next time.

Michael_H said...

"Republican writers working for the Bambi campaign."

Carl Rove is a genius, a bigger genius than Einstein. No wonder he's always smiling while Alan Colmes is flailing away in an attempt to recall the day's memorized talking points. Rove already knows the talking points. His moles wrote them. Genius.

PJ said...

Thank you, FLS. For those interested, here is a link to what I believe is the bill concerning sex education that Obama allegedly supported. See for yourself whether you think the claim concerning its content is fair.

http://tinyurl.com/5zaj9k

(Sorry about my lack of linky-fu.)

Joan said...

PJ, Jim Geraghty at NRO's Campaign Spot dissected the sex ed ad here.

Here's the relevant graph:
Anyway, having now looked at the text of the sex education bill in question… it’s clear that one of its key purposes was to change existing law that said “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS” to “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered 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. (emphasis added)

Also:
The bill was approved by the state senate’s Health and Human Services Committee with the support of… Barack Obama. The bill must have run into objections from the full chamber, because shortly thereafter, one of the bill’s original sponsors, State Sen. Carol Ronen, apparently rethought the age issue and introduced an amendment to shift it back to grade 6. But the revised bill never came up for a vote in the full chamber.

Geraghty notes that the McCain ad is deceptive in calling this legislation an Obama accomplishment, since it did not ultimately pass. But Obama did support sex ed for kindergarten students. It's all in the legislative record.

Sy said...

IN THE END, Palin did canceled the bridge project. That was no lie. Get over it you liberals.

Roger J. said...

Victoria. Good point about the netroot base. Obama has been getting some sharply pointed questions from supporters in the audience asking when he is going to "fight back." Appealing to the base is a loser strategy at this point, IMO; It will only cause him to lose more independents. The Real Clear Politics page even has Obamas support in PA and NY slipping a bit. He's got to do something to get back on some kind of message thats going to resonate outside the democratic party.

Sy said...

Obama complaing about "lies" and "smears" is like Adolf Hitler complaining about mass murders.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years! Like anyone with reason is gonna believe that.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Obviously full candor would not have made much of a soundbite.

Indeed. Much like Obama's claim that McCain wants us fighting in Iraq for 100 years.

Candor in politics? Heh.

former law student said...

The only thing in that ad which isn't an opinion is the 90% voting with Bush, which has been already shot full of holes (e.g., Bush doesn't have a vote, many votes are unanimous, Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time).

You want us to believe that Bush has no expressed position on pending legislation? As Balki would say, "Don't be ridiculos!"

Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time

This means either
Bush is 40% liberal Democrat,
Obama put country first by crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans, or
Obama stood up to his own party.

Pastor_Jeff said...

I think Obama's referring to the "Sex Ed" ad which Obama's campaign said was shameful, perverse, and dishonorable.

Except that when challenged on the bill in 2007 by Romney, Obama's spokesman pointed to an existing age-graded sex curriculum from SIECUS. The topics for 5-8 year-olds include vaginal intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity, same-sex partnerships, masturbation, unintended pregnancy, STDs, complications of HIV, transmission of HIV, sexual assault (good touch/bad touch).

We can debate whether your first-grader's teacher should be presenting those topics in the classroom, but the ad's assertion, according to the curriculum pointed out by Obama's own spokesman, is true.

MadisonMan said...

Include examples next time.

I think that's a bad idea. Will someone watching the ad remember the example, but not the ad? I wouldn't want to risk that.

Re: the tiresome bridge argument. What governor wouldn't be for money from DC? And what governor might not cancel a bridge (to almost nowhere) that wasn't fully funded? I think she misrepresents her position; it wasn't frugality or wanting to watch out for federal taxpayer money that made her cancel the bridge. It was inability to fully fund a boondoggle (or more precisely: there were other more pressing needs for the money).

Michael_H said...

"Geraghty notes that the McCain ad is deceptive in calling this legislation an Obama accomplishment, since it did not ultimately pass. But Obama did support sex ed for kindergarten students. It's all in the legislative record."

Doggone McCain campaign...falsely accusing Obama of an accomplishment.


(How do I do the italic thingie?)


Geez..I love the way Rush is playing a rim shot after each audio clip of a Dem speaking. Cracks me up.

Pastor_Jeff said...

Does Obama ... think he can rip away McCain's honor by quoting the Washington Post?

Come on, Ann; he did quote The New Republic, too.

vbspurs said...

Roger wrote:

Obama has been getting some sharply pointed questions from supporters in the audience asking when he is going to "fight back."

If you check even the moderate TalkLeft, they practically BEG him to do so. One commenter said that all Obama should do is run 24/7 ads with the "Bush/McCain hugging" photo on it.

Obviously a comical exaggeration, but as Krauthammer said, McCain has successfully divorced himself from the BushCo brand in the minds of voters.

This didn't come overnight, and therefore, it'll take more than overnight to change it back.

McCain had been gaining steadily on Obama since July. The worst possible thing Obama could've done is to go on that foreign trip, where he all but snubbed his noses at his countrymen back home, and courted the plaudits of foreigners. He asked Merkel if he could use the Brandenburg Gate as his rally backdrop. His arrogance is unbelievable, and McCain seized on that immediately with the celebritney ad.

Palin was a dagger to the heart of Team Obama. The reason it was successful and not backfired on him as every Liberal commentator predicted, is that it was made from a position of strength, not weakness.

That was gutsy. He laid EVERYTHING on the line with that pick.

It's been paying hyuuuge dividends ever since.

Cheers,
Victoria

Christy said...

Jumping up and down and screaming "Liar! Liar!" is sure going to convince all those suburban moms.

Jim said...

fls -

Is it now your position that the term "comprehensive sex education" (which is contained within the legislation itself) implies that kindergartners are to be taught how to put on a condom and it's not just about good touch/bad touch as you originally claimed (before you were proven wrong)?

That's 180 degrees from the position you took in the previous thread. So which is it does "comprehensive sex education" mean what it says or doesn't it?

McCain's ad used the phrase "comprehensive sex education" because that's how it was described in the legislation. Now you want to say the phrase implies something more than the good touch/bad touch you previously claimed it meant.

So, just for the record, are you lying now or were you lying then? (Either way, it shows just how dishonest you were when you tried to attack McCain.)

The Absolute Advantage said...

fls,

This means either
Bush is 40% liberal Democrat,
Obama put country first by crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans, or
Obama stood up to his own party.


Or like rich b said, they are unanimous... there isn't much dissent over giving discounted bus passes to war widows...

Michael_H said...

"Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time"

Not bad, considering Obama missed 38% of the Senate votes, according to the Washington Post.

Dave said...

It's not so much about the bridge, but McCain's filthy education ad.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-c.html

Karl Rove said it was a step too far, and didn't meet the "100 percent truth" test. That's putting it nicely.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

By the way, that bridge? Not dead.

http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-administration-still-pursuing-nowhere-project-913/

Dogwood said...

(How do I do the italic thingie?)


< i > text < / i >

But delete the spaces within the brackets.

vbspurs said...

Christy, the only "positive" to be taken from this ad, for suburban moms and anyone else, is that Obama is finally attacking the top guy in the ticket.

It's a signal to his base that he intends to become tougher with Old Man McCain and leave the moose eater alone.

But the ad's message, tone, and timing looks rusty.

You can tell there hasn't been any kind of real tough ad produced by Team Obama since August 28th.

miller said...

Hey Bambi,

How's that HopeChange comin' along?

John Stodder said...

Obviously full candor would not have made much of a soundbite.

As Shakespeare said, "brevity is the soul of wit." However, to the despair of many writers including me, brevity leaves no room for nuance. There is a fine line between simplifying an idea and oversimplifying it. I think Palin stayed on the acceptable side of it.

P.S. For the record, I'm utterly dismayed by the McCain sex-ed ad. I've read Geraghty's justificaton for it, and I get it, but I think it's unfair to draw from that legislative history that Obama had any intent of putting explicit sex education in front of kindergartners.

I don't think Obama's ad today is effective payback, but I do think McCain should pay a price for it. A better angle would be to use Karl Rove's rebuke. "Is there a politic attack ad too nasty even for Karl Rove? There is, and John McCain is running it."

Pastor_Jeff said...

Uh, Dave?

As I pointed out, the "age-appropriate" curriculum Obama apparently supports includes vaginal intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity, same-sex partnerships, masturbation, unintended pregnancy, STDs, complications of HIV, transmission of HIV, sexual assault (good touch/bad touch).

Did you follow the link and read the material?

Or is your complaint that it's not comprehensive enough?

vbspurs said...

Obama needs a Jim Carville type of guy in his campaign.

A guy who will snarl at reporters, and take that nobody Palin down without being visibly sexist.

IOW, he needs a blue-collar guy, willing to roll up his sleeves and get messy.

I don't think Obama's world includes such people. They're all eggheads, or BoBos, or people who wouldn't condenscend to know people like the Palins.

Obama is out of his depth with so many of his fellow Americans.

Michael_H said...

Thanks Dogwood!

Dogwood said...

Link code:

< a href="web address" > Text < /a >

But delete the space before the first "a" and after the last quote mark. Also delete the spaces before and after "/a" in the last bracket.

And make sure the quote marks are at the beginning and end of the web address.

PJ said...

Thank you, Joan. Now that I've read the legislation, I see that it does mandate STD-prevention education for all students K-12. The teaching is supposed to be age- and development-appropriate, and it looks like the Superintendent is supposed to approve specific curricula. Parents can opt their kids out by filing written objections. Dealing with inappropriate sexual behavior (I take it this means "good touch/bad touch" for younger kids) is identified as one of numerous subjects to be covered.

Altogether, while I don't think I would have delved into this if I were McCain, I don't think he lied about the content of the bill.

Pastor_Jeff said...

I think it's unfair to draw from that legislative history that Obama had any intent of putting explicit sex education in front of kindergartners.

John, see my post @ 2:48.

Either he knew what was in the curriculum his advisor says he supports, and he's a lying scumbag; or he didn't know what was in the curriculum which he held up as an example of what he supports, and is stupid.

Neither option looks good for Obama, but McCain assertion is true.

Mortimer Brezny said...

McCain has nothing left but deception? Why would we be ready to accept that message?

1. It is true.
2. McCain's campaign advisers have admitted it is true.
3. The media is saying it is true.
4. Karl Rove has said it is true.
5. Fox News is treating it as if it is true.
6. Negative assertions always work, because brains pay attention and absorb the bits that are true.

vbspurs said...

OT/Reminder:

First Dude, Todd Palin, on Greta Van Susteren on Fox News tonight, 10 PM EST.

Govenor Sarah Palin on Hannity & Colmes Tuesday and Wednesday, 9 PM EST.

Cheers,
Victoria

AlphaLiberal said...

Even McCain sycophant David Ignatius says he's gone too far!

'In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil."

He was right. '

vbspurs said...

Question: Is this guy above quxxo?

Seven Machos said...

Whoever is giving this advice to Obama needs to be canned. The premises of Obama's whole campaign used to be (1) promising change and (2) projecting cool.

1. When voters see these attack ads, they can see that the promises of change are empty. And, as an aside, even the ads themselves are kind of lamely similar to the past.

2. People belittle cool a lot. I am not doing that. Cool is a powerful thing to project. However, you cannot simultaneously be cool and angry at the same time. To the extent we have Angry Obama, we cannot have Cool Obama.

In the final analysis, Obama seems to be 100 percent off message and just out of whack.

former law student said...

pastor jeff left out much of Obama's campaign's response to Romney's criticism:

The Obama campaign gave this statement to CBN's David Brody: "Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."

Brody's analysis: "Obama doesn't want to hand out condoms to five year olds. He doesn't want cucumber demonstrations as part of show and tell. The legitimate reasonable discussion here is whether the federal government and/or local school boards should get involved in providing these five year olds information about inappropriate touching or should it be left up to families only."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read: "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there." In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has curriculum for those in kindergarten.


Here are the Oregon Department of Education's guidelines for children in grades K-3 that the Obama campaign referred to. Instruction on vaginal intercourse and masturbation are replaced with Kleenex usage and staying away from sharp objects. Note that the Obama campaign's "pointing to" the SIECUS curriculum did not constitute their endorsement.

A. Grades K-3:
1. Good touch, bad touch
2. Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic
growth process
3. Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept
4. Behaviors that reduce the spread of communicable diseases (washing
hands, not sharing eating utensils, using Kleenex)
5. Accepting of their uniqueness and a positive regard for themselves and
others
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention
7. Unsafe objects (needles, broken glass, drug paraphernalia)
8. Refusal skills, role playing
9. Personal hygiene
10. Emotional development


That SIECUS curriculum did go pretty far. Trooper York should note that the largest block of people who worked on it come from New Jersey.

Pastor_Jeff said...

Dealing with inappropriate sexual behavior (I take it this means "good touch/bad touch" for younger kids) is identified as one of numerous subjects to be covered.

PJ, Read through the SIECUS curriculum which Obama's spokesman gave as an example of "age-appropriate" sex ed and pay attention to what's covered in "level 1" (ages 5-8).

John Stodder said...

This means either
Bush is 40% liberal Democrat,
Obama put country first by crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans, or
Obama stood up to his own party.


None of the above.

It means that most legislative votes are on uncontroversial matters that tend to get unanimous or near-unanimous approval. Whoever said the figure would have been higher if Obama was in the Senate more is correct. Biden's "agreed with Bush" number is something like 70 percent.

The point is, the McCain "voted with Bush 90 percent" is a misleading stat because it conflates the uncontroversial stuff with the votes that indicate views on controversial matters. I don't know what McCain's number would be then, but it would probably be less than other Republicans.

Pastor_Jeff said...

pastor jeff left out much of Obama's campaign's response to Romney's criticism

It's not my job to repeat Obama's talking points. Everyone's aware of how they're spinning this.

Again, either he knew what was in the SIECUS curriculum his spokesman recommended and is throwing out false accusations and phony outrage at McCain, or he didn't know what was in the curriculum and is stupid.

Wurly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastor_Jeff said...

Note that the Obama campaign's "pointing to" the SIECUS curriculum did not constitute their endorsement.

Now that's an interesting spin.

"Hey, there's plenty of good curricula out there, unlike this one to which I refer you, which we definitely don't support."

vbspurs said...

2. People belittle cool a lot. I am not doing that. Cool is a powerful thing to project. However, you cannot simultaneously be cool and angry at the same time. To the extent we have Angry Obama, we cannot have Cool Obama.

Eh, there are gradations of cool. Seething is cool. See Marlon Brando in Streetcar Named Desire.

Problem is Obama right now is whiny, and befuddled, off his game, and yes, I will say it, feminine.

He's lashing out at unfairness, rather than making cogent, testosterone-driven attacks.

Right now, in the average, non-blog reading American, Obama is some kind of foreign wussy guy, who thinks he's God's gift.

He's the logical successor to Kerry, and his funny French ways.

Unlike Kerry, Obama showed Americans a lot of promise in January 2008. This was a guy who would beat a field of strong Democrats based on his intelligence, and cool. So he played dirty sometimes -- not always a negative, as mentioned above.

But he was effectively dirty. Remember the 1984/Apple ad where the woman threw the hammer on Big Sister Clinton's face? Ouch. Low-down, nasty, but effective.

This ad today? It's a fart in the wind.

Cheers,
Victoria

Jim said...

fls -

This means either
Bush is 40% liberal Democrat,
Obama put country first by crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans, or
Obama stood up to his own party.


Or it means that you have absolutely zero understanding of legislation, the Senate, or the workings of the Federal government.

That 40% consists of unanimous consent and other completely uncontroversial legislation.

So, once again, we're faced with two options: either you're a completely dishonest partisan hack or a complete moron who should probably be kept away from sharp objects. I'm leaning toward the first, but I don't think anyone here is ruling out the second...

Is this really how low you have to sink and how dishonest you have to be in order to make Obama look like he's done something with his life other than run for office?

Revenant said...

A better angle would be to use Karl Rove's rebuke. "Is there a politic attack ad too nasty even for Karl Rove? There is, and John McCain is running it.

The problem with that sort of ad is that I suspect the only people who view Karl Rove as an evil and repugnant individual are already voting for Obama. Moderates, swing voters, and independents don't necessarily view him as any worse than James Carville, Paul Begala, et al.

Revenant said...

But he was effectively dirty. Remember the 1984/Apple ad where the woman threw the hammer on Big Sister Clinton's face? Ouch. Low-down, nasty, but effective.

The Obama campaign didn't have anything to do with that ad, if I recall correctly.

integrity said...

Great ad! McCain is a piece of garbage liar.

The next four years with McCain will make you yearn for the last 8 with Tush all over again.

You managed to find 2 people we loathe more than Bush/Cheney.

Annie, Keep on trying to avoid the meltdown of the financial system with these inane posts. Must cut like a knife. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

I wonder how many anti-regulation republicans will kill themselves over the next year. Hopefully "Jabba the Hut" Limbaugh is among them, and Patca of course.

Jim said...

john stodder -

explicit sex education

Point me to even one place that McCain said Obama supported "explicit" sex education. You can't because neither nor his campaign ever have.

The term he used was "comprehensive sex education" which is an exact quote from the legislation. That was it, nothing more.

How is that in any way dishonest?

Roger J. said...

Revenant has it: the moonbat left projects it beliefs onto every one else. Goes with their demented view of reality. Plus Rove isnt involved in this campaign (except for the mind control ray).

Donn said...

Excellent work Pastor Jeff!

Dave said...

I'll just point out that the ad in question discusses the Illinois bill, not the curriculum cited here. And the ad mischaracterizes the bill, as discussed by Illinois educators here.

miller said...

Well, maybe Bambi will go after the financial meltdown and speak against the corporations that have been shoveling his campaign money.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Donn said...

"Comprehensive" sex ed is a code word for "explicit" sex education

Jim Hu said...

I admit that I laughed when I saw who the citations were. But probably only political junkies will find it funny.

First cite: Time (Joe Klein)
Second cite: WaPo (E.J. Dionne)
Third cite:New Republic (Orr) Christopher Orr is the TNR's film critic.
Fourth: CBS news(Benen). Not sure, but I think this is the Steve Benen who posts at HuffPo and Political Animal
Fifth: Chicago Tribune (James). I don't know anything about Frank James, but it's the hometown paper,
Sixth: Dionne again.

The NYT must feel left out: no Krugman? No MoDo? What about Frank Rich?

And where are Olbermann and Sullivan?

FWIW, I think the sex-ed ad was dumb and sleazy. But the sleaziest ads (plural) ever? I think not. The hyperbole dilutes the message... and just using the nonspecific critical quotes assumes that the viewer knows what the heck Obama is talking about.

I think it would have been much more effective with just a single quote... from Rove on Fox.

miller said...

And "clean" is code word for ... what, exactly?

I can't understand the code if I don't know the code words.

Please elucidate.

Trevor Jackson said...

Does Obama -- [aside referring to the time Althouse read Obama's past mind] -- think he can rip away McCain's honor by quoting the Washington Post?"

Obama's not doing anything except pointing out that McCain tossed it aside all on his own.

Seven Machos said...

When has a candidate from either side ever won by making bitching about the other side's campaign a centerpiece of their own campaign?

More importantly, who do Democrats do this every time? I recall only one Democratic presidential candidate, actually, who rose above it all and decided to win instead of whine.

Where have you gone, Bill Clinton? The nation's raving leftist moonbats turn their lonely eyes to you. Ooo-ooo-ooo.

Pogo said...

Oregon ...guidelines for children in grades K-3 that the Obama campaign referred to. Instruction on vaginal intercourse and masturbation are replaced with Kleenex usage and staying away from sharp objects.

Yep.
Get right into intercourse and masturbation in 4th grade.

Gotta love those culture warriors. What exactly was the reason for pushing this knowledge onto little kids?
Oh, yeah, the old Democratic Party shibboleth information.

Pastor_Jeff said...

And the ad mischaracterizes the bill, as discussed by Illinois educators here.

"So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?

“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says."

Well, that's interesting, I guess, but I don't recall McCain running an ad saying anything about what Illinois educators think about age-appropriate sex ed.

Obama's spokesman gave us an example of what Obama thought "age-appropriate" sex ed was.

vbspurs said...

7. Unsafe objects (needles, broken glass, drug paraphernalia)

*CRINGE*

I want to hug my mother right now, for just yelling at me not to run with scissors.

Jim said...

integrity -

Keep on trying to avoid the meltdown of the financial system with these inane posts. Must cut like a knife. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Actually, in the comments of another blog I recommended that McCain take on the current financial crisis.

Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae? Obama has employed 2 former CEOs, including one as a top adviser

Countrywide? Jim Johnson, who was on the VP vetting committee for Obama

Credit Cards? Joe "Senator from MBNA" Biden who has pushed through multiple pieces of legislation favorable to credit card companies at the expense of consumers

Lobbyists for all the above? Obama ranks among the top money getters in Congress from these financial institutions.

Change you can believe in? Nope, just pocket change for Obama/Biden

You want to go down this road "integrity"? Hop on board, I'm driving...

Christy said...

Victoria, I was referring to the fact that moms hear kids calling each other liars all the time and it usually doesn't mean much. I think the ad makes Obama sound childish.

Seven Machos said...

And one more thing, Obamers: as evidenced in this thread, the more you stupidly flog this ad, the more you flog the issue behind it.

You guys are too smart to imagine the little clinging people having conversations about the ad, so I'll dramatize it for you:

Clingy religious gun nut #1: Did you see that Obama ad?

Clingy religious gun nut #2: No.

Clingy religious gun nut #1: It says that McCain is terrible for running an ad that talks about how Obama wants sex ed for kindergarten kids.

Clingy religious gun nut #2: Obama wants voted for sex ed for kindergarten kids?

Clingy religious gun nut #1: Yeah. Guess so.

Jim said...

dave -

The ad simply said Obama supported comprehensive sex education. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's it. There was no additional voiceover or text which "characterized" anything.

Those words are direct quotes from the legislation. So I challenge you, once again, to point out how the ad "mischaracterizes" the bill.

garage mahal said...

The next four years with McCain will make you yearn for the last 8 with Tush all over again..

McCain and Bush clearly don't like one another, and I can hear Junior chuckling at seeing McCain crawling to religious extremists to get elected and therefore continuing his dreadful policies; at the same time the only thing going for McCain was his veneer of honor and integrity, which is completely destroyed now by Bush flacks running his campaign. McCain is ill equipped to deal with any of the real problems this country is facing, so yeah, legacy restored.

Seven Machos said...

Garage, people like Integrity are simply able to generate hatred for any Republican candidate. Invective is all they are good for.

It's sad.

integrity said...

Jim said...
integrity -

Keep on trying to avoid the meltdown of the financial system with these inane posts. Must cut like a knife. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Actually, in the comments of another blog I recommended that McCain take on the current financial crisis.

Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae? Obama has employed 2 former CEOs, including one as a top adviser

Countrywide? Jim Johnson, who was on the VP vetting committee for Obama

Credit Cards? Joe "Senator from MBNA" Biden who has pushed through multiple pieces of legislation favorable to credit card companies at the expense of consumers

Lobbyists for all the above? Obama ranks among the top money getters in Congress from these financial institutions.

Change you can believe in? Nope, just pocket change for Obama/Biden

You want to go down this road "integrity"? Hop on board, I'm driving...



You bet, history will record that the morons residing in the U.S. on both sides went along with Reagan's ill-conceived de-regulation schemes. Bill Clinton continued down the path without even considering what he was doing(whether it be the Telecommunications Act or rolling back post-depression era safeguards per the advice of his crappy corporate stooge financial advisors).

By the end of this, Reagan democrats will be revealed for the self-loathing and self-obliterating morons they are.

Reagan idolatry is about to come to an end.

Regulate, baby, regulate.

Cedarford said...

The problem with a political movement not backed up by guns and terror (see the Russian-Jewish Red Terror Groups, Nazi Brownshirts, Red Guard, and Palestinian Propagandists) - is that without physical threat - the extremist vitriol of the vilest accusations soon starts to resemble comic rants from a pissed-off inarticulate person acting comically, a childs temper tantrum, or just gets boring through habituation.

Bush LIED!!
Bush MURDERED children he duped into becoming INSANE KILLER Marines. Then LIED, LIED, LIED about it!!
Madeline Albright is a GENOCIDAL MONSTER!!
Reagan is a LYING NAZI!!
McCain is a LAIR!
Condoleeza Rice is a STUPID SLUT CUNT AUNT JEMIMA IRAQI BABY BUTCHER! A MURDERER!
Palin is a LYING SLUT! And TORTURES WILDLIFE and KILLS INNOCENT CREATURES FOR FUN!!!

She is also AN IGNORANT STINKING CHRISTIAN BIGOT. An ANTI_SEMITE!!

We won't stand for EVIL LYING Republicans who HATE AMERICA and WISH to LYNCH BLACKS ....we won't stand for them to DARE QUESTION OUR PATRIOTISM!!

The problem is the Dems look like all 3 versions of idiots doing this 60s Marxist Theater of Outrage/Politics of Confrontation shit for 40 years too long.

1. The look like the idiot that uses SHIT!, NIGGAH, M'FUCKER so much that when they really do get pissed or badly hurt it sounds just the same as when they are normal trash-talking. Which pisses them off even more because other people begin to see them as inarticulate clowns..
2. Too much child with a temper tantrum cursing because they simply don't get their way. You want to send all the Democrat idiots screaming LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! to their little time-out room.
3. You use strong words too much for attention, provocation...and people don't pay attention when you really want to convey importance, unacceptable acts.
Same principle as crying wolf.


Republicans, on the other hand, do not tend to emloy hysterical theatrics. That in turn makes them seem more mature and adult in discussing issues. Which, IMO, gives them more credibility than perhaps they deserve considering their mismanagement and whoring out to the rich.

The extreme insults of the Jewish-Russian Bolsheviks and the Nazis and various other deadly extremists were taken more seriously - because they were not impotent juvenile players - they were willing to do more than run their mouths off.
And you find that military communications to enemy populations to do this or that or possible die - tend to be very civil, with almost subdued language by the commander posting notices. They don't need any hysterical language to get the point across.

Synova said...

The thing about "age appropriate" is that it's always ever going to be someone else's idea of "age appropriate".

Plus, the thing about government is that it's all about forcing you to do what you don't want to do.

Schools *can* teach basic health and good touch/bad touch to kindergarteners... and I suspect a lot of them do... so why pass a state law requiring it?

People are more comfortable with local control because there actually is control... when it gets to be a requirement from the state it gets far more one-size-fits-all and wondering just who is going to decide what is "age appropriate."

blake said...

Lies must have the intent to deceive.

I have been taken aback by the use of the phrase "you're lying!" in place of the phrase "you're wrong!"

Thing is, I know I'm wrong. About lots of stuff. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns. When people point that out with facts and logic, I'm appreciative.

But I also know I'm not lying.

And when I'm accused of lying because of a simple error (that maybe isn't even an error in the first place), I'm reminded that there are far worse things than lying.

miller said...

Blake - nice point.

Being wrong isn't lying.

Except to the left. Then, it's lying.

AlphaLiberal said...

Whoa. David Addington forged Gonzo's name on the wireless wiretapping docs:
Addington signed Gonzales’ name to re-authorize warrantless wiretapping program.

that's the kind of arrogance that deserves a cell in a federal pen.

AlphaLiberal said...

Repeating statements when you're wrong and you've been told you're wrong is lying.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 535   Newer› Newest»