by publius
Sarah Palin — for apparently the 23rd time — again flat-out lied about the Bridge to Nowhere today. The press has done a fairly decent job reporting the inaccuracy, but she and the McCain campaign are just rubbing the press’s nose in it at this point. They clearly feel like they have the press pretty much where they want them. I’m curious to see if the press will step up its criticisms, or whether it will cower in fear that Steve Schmidt might say something mean about them again. Kevin Drum gets it exactly right:
And not get too sanctimonious about this, but this really is a test of some kind for the press. This lie is unusually egregious given the plain facts of the situation (Palin was eagerly supportive of the bridge until after Congress pulled the earmark, at which point she reluctantly decided to take the money but use it for other projects), and if the media allows the McCain campaign to get away with it — if they relegate it to occasional closing paragraphs and page A9 fact checks — well, that means McCain knows he can pretty much get away with anything. The press will be writing its own declaration of irrelevance. Interesting times indeed.
I surf the webs hours every day…mainly the best progblogs, and the lead story I’m seeing in most of them is about nervousness…fear and anger at the wimpy campaign Obama seems to be running, and the nasty attacking one McKrusty and sidekick are shoving down the willing throats of the Corporate media and the American Public…
Will the Obama campaign repeat the mistakes of the past?…will the ghosts of past campaigns, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry come to visit them on election night?
Inquiring minds want to know!
The press has been irrelevant for quite some time now. Had they been relevant since Bush’s election, he and Cheney would be in prison.
This stuff is important, but not as much as you guys think. You are going to have to attack McCain and Palin where their strengths are…and as far as most folks are concerned that’s his military record and her ‘small town values.’
You better get personal or we are going to lose.
This situation reminds me of a Dave Barry column I read about Iran-Contra. The basic jist was the media would ask Reagan questions, like “did you authorize the sale of weapons to Iran” and Reagan would say stuff like “everyone who can remember where they were August 23, 1985, raise your hand.” (Barry tells a joke about how the reporters checked their diaries, and it turned out that they had all sold arms to Iran that day).
Anyway, the reaction of the public was to get mad at the reporters for asking the questions. “Leave him alone, you media!”
I sorta get the sense that’s the reaction to Palin too. She’s is almost comically corrupt, yet the reaction appears to be resentment at the media for shyly pointing it out.
If that’s the reaction, we’re screwed as a country.
“The press has done a fairly decent job reporting the inaccuracy”
It was fun (and by fun I mean infuriating) listening to Juan Williams on NPR this morning. He was trying everything he possibly could to avoid actually telling the truth about the Bridge to Nowhere/Palin lie. It was like listening to a McCain campaign staffer. I looked for a transcript, but couldn’t find one.
Obama seems to know what he is doing.
He has been as consistent as a metronome in this process, over nearly two years. Thoughtful, truthfull, considerate, informative.
After eight years of rote public statements, and ill informed ‘gut’ decisionmaking by our public officials, would it be unreasonable to think that the public will credit Obama for these quite admirable traits, rather than discrediting his campaign for not having enough ‘calcium’.?
God I hope so.
The McCain campaign, like everyone else, holds the press in utter contempt. I ain’t gonna hold my breath waiting for the press to stand up for itself.
It was fun (and by fun I mean infuriating) listening to Juan Williams on NPR this morning. He was trying everything he possibly could to avoid actually telling the truth about the Bridge to Nowhere/Palin lie. It was like listening to a McCain campaign staffer. I looked for a transcript, but couldn’t find one
I heard that too, during the ten minutes I was in my car on the way to the train station, and you’re right. Williams contorted himself into a pretzel trying not to say that Palin lied, when in fact she had done just that.
I think the real problem, though, is that even if the mainstream press screams the story at the tops of their lungs, lots of people still won’t hear it, because they get their information from Fox News, or worse, from Rush Limbaugh, et al, and Palin’s version of the story is what will be repeated ad nauseam between now and November.
I’m not sure Kevin Drum is being appropriately deferential.
Sarah Palin will tell us exactly what she wants us to know whenever she wants to tell us. If we are sufficiently well behaved.
That this (barely if at all exaggerated) pronouncement did not make the media world erupt like Mt. St. Helens blowing its top confirms for me how whupped and sycophantic most of them are. This is just another brick in the wall of insults to the American people–at least to those who think government should be by and for the people.
I guess it makes the prospective slide away from constitutional safeguards easier to handle if the media doesn’t bother exercising their First Amendment freedoms anyway.
I have not been paying enough attention to the Obama campaign’s take on this, but since conservatives seem to have made a tactic out of criticizing the media in order to get a pass on things later on, has the Obama campaign tried (or tried hard enough) to criticize the mainstream media for giving Palin a pass on the Bridge to Nowhere/truthfulness issue in order to have a counterbalancing effect? Or does that just play into the media’s habit of just reporting both “sides” of an issue, even if the issue is whether the Earth is flat (“Most scientists say the Earth is round, but some say it is actually flat.”)?
OK, I’ll bite: Where’s the “lie”?
Here’s what I understand to be the facts:
1. Palin initial supported the Bridge.
2. Following public opposition, Congress removed the earmark, and instead simply sent the money to Alaska as a block sum.
3. Palin decided not to use those funds for the Bridge but, rather, used them on other state transportation priorities.
In short, she declined to spend federal funds on the bridge. Isn’t that exactly what she said she did?
Is everyone just hung up on the fact that she was for it before she was against it? I’m not sure what the problem is that with — she ended up in the right place, and now she’s reiterated the fact that she ultimately made the right decision.
I mean, it’s not like she first tended toward the right decision (e.g., supported funding for the troops), then ended up making the wrong decision (e.g., voted against funding for the troops), and then bragged that she initially had the right instinct.
Adam.
That last sentence is what you asked about.
“3. Palin decided not to use those funds for the Bridge but, rather, used them on other state transportation priorities.”
Such as building access roads to the bridge she doesn’t support. What a reformer.
Just to clarify and avoid lying, she could say:
“We decided not to build the bridge after all, but we kept the US taxpayer’s money anyway. We figured out other stuff we wanted to spend your money on!”
Yea, more accurate, but somehow doesn’t quite have the mavericky reformer ring she is going for.
In short, she declined to spend federal funds on the bridge. Isn’t that exactly what she said she did?
No, it isn’t. She has said (repeatedly) that she “told Congress ‘Thanks but no thanks.'” Taking the money and spending it in Alaska isn’t “no thanks.” It’s as if she turned down my offer of a slice of cake, then took the cash equivalent from me and spent it on ice cream–that doesn’t count as saving me money by skipping dessert.
Gary,
But she *did* stop the Bridge to Nowhere: She refused to spend the granted federal funds on it.
Again, where’s the lie? The authors of that WSJ article didn’t identify a “lie” — their harshest accusation was that the story required a “caveat.”
Palin decided not to use those funds for the Bridge but, rather, used them on other state transportation priorities.
She’s claiming that (a) she stopped the bridge; (b) she said “Thanks but no thanks”; (c) she’s 100 and 10 % against “earmarks”.
3 big fat whoppers.
I mean, it’s not like she first tended toward the right decision (e.g., supported funding for the troops), then ended up making the wrong decision (e.g., voted against funding for the troops), and then bragged that she initially had the right instinct.
The first bill didn’t have a lot of cr@p the second one did. Bush was using the second bill (and his “If you’re not for us, you’re against us” BS) to get funds not related to the war, at the expense of proper equipment for the troops. Kerry made the right decison both times.
Adam,
Not quite.
The Federal earmark was (I may be a little off on the figures here, but not much) about $320 million of the estimated $360 million needed to build the bridge. That meant Alaska would have to come up with the $40 million difference. Palin didn’t want to spend Alaska’s money that way (but apparently was perfectly happy to spend the Federal government’s money that way. In other words, if the earmark had been for the whole $360 million, the bridge would have been built.)
This is inconsistent with her statement that “I told Congress, if we want a bridge, we’ll pay for it ourselves.” More like “I told Congress, we want a bridge but only if you pay for it.”
She “stopped” it after there was no longer any prospect of getting it because of the public outcry. It’s like a bank robber claiming he turned himself in to police when he means he “voluntarily” went with them in handcuffs after they broke down his door.
Hogan,
You said: She has said (repeatedly) that she “told Congress ‘Thanks but no thanks.'”
You’re leaving out a part of the quote: What she’s actually said is, I told the Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that Bridge to Nowhere.
In other words, you analogy is completely inapt.
My goodness, people sure are up in arms over this candidate. I must admit that it’s all rather fun to watch.
Um, no.
You’re not making sense.
Agentzero (if that is your real name),
Congress sent Alaska hundreds of millions of dollars, which could have been spent on the Bridge, but Palin decided not to. She’s said that “[i]f our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves” — and they didn’t want to pay for it, so they didn’t build it.
Again, where’s the lie?
Adam: do you dispute that if, Congress had ponied up the full $360 million instead of $320 million, Palin would likely have authorized the construction of the bridge?
Adam: I’m with everyone else in saying that the lie is “I told the Congress: thanks but no thanks.”
(a) Congress had removed the earmark by the time she took office, so she didn’t get to “tell” them anything about it.
(b) She did not decline any offer of theirs. See (a) above, plus: what was on offer was money, and she took that.
(c) She campaigned in support of getting that money. She did not oppose it’s being appropriated, which is what “I said thanks but no thanks” clearly implies.
Shorter me: she didn’t just say she opposed the bridge, or stopped it. She said something more specific, which is not true.
Fwiw, I find the fact that they are going on about this bizarre, even apart from the lies. They are saying that Palin tried to reform the earmarks process while a governor. The federal earmarks process. That would be a very odd thing to try to do. Why on earth not try to get the money you can, and reform your own appropriations process instead?
I wouldn’t care what her position was on the bridge, except that they’re lying about it.
Knock yourself out, Adam. Pay attention to the quote below the picture.
But she *did* stop the Bridge to Nowhere: She refused to spend the granted federal funds on it.
How exactly is that saying ‘thanks but no thanks’? What exactly did she say ‘no thanks’ to from Congress?
Ending the bridge project isn’t saying ‘no thanks’ to Congress- at that point they’d already removed the earmark. And she certainly lied when she claimed that if Alaskans wanted a bridge they would build it themselves- she was perfectly happy to take the money for the bridge before the earmark was cancelled.
Sarah Palin has *no* history of opposing earmarks or pork. Quite the opposite- she’s been a proud supporter of their congressional delegation’s attempts to bring home the pork.
How is this Palin lie any different from the fairy tale lie about Obama being against the war on Iraq? He gave a meaningless speech about Iraq when it did’t matter. But when he actually had to take a stand on the issue he voted to support it every chance he got.
Neither one of them tell the truth about their past. We’ve seen that many liberals don’t mind when their guy does it just like many conservatives don’t mind when it’s their guy or gal doing the lying.
This is just one of the many reasons I quit Obama for Hilary during the primary campaign.
Anarch:
I don’t have a clue — you’re asking for me to step back in time and make a prediction as to an event we know, for a fact, did not come to pass.
Let’s stick with what actually did and did not happen, ok? We’re trying to establish whether Palin’s statements are factually accurate.
It has occured to me that McCain/Palin would like to draw Obama into a discussion over earmarks generally, and that this is just an introduction.
Obama has a list of earmarks that he put in that would take half an hour to read, in summary.
Adam,
let me emphasize this question: What exactly did she say ‘no thanks’ to from Congress?
Hint: here are some transcripts of Palin back in ’06. See if you can find 1)opposition to the bridge or 2)her saying ‘no thanks’ to anything from Congress.
“Liberal Japonics”:
Look at my first post, above: No one’s disputing that she originally supported the Bridge.
The only question is whether she lied when she said she declined to spend federal money on the Bridge. That is the statement that Publius is challenging.
And I note that Hilzoy is making the same error as Hogan: She said thanks but not thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere. She’s never said that she completely eschews federal funds for infrastructure projects. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Hilzoy is “lying” about Palin’s words if she’s suggesting that Palin claims to have eschewed federal transportation money altogether.
Seeing how this conversation is plaing out, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that Palin manifestly did not lie. People are arguing that she should have included more detail, or that she flip-flopped. But there’s simply no “lie” there.
Now when are you folks going to get back to the Politics of Hope or whatever? All of this complaining strikes me as “Old Politics.”
How is this Palin lie any different from the fairy tale lie about Obama being against the war on Iraq? He gave a meaningless speech about Iraq…
It is different by virtue of Obama’s statement being true. I know that’s probably complicated for a troll to process- one of the statements is a true retelling of past events, the other is not.
He explained his opposition (I wonder what would’ve been a ‘meaningful speech’ given that he wasn’t in a position to stop the war singlehanded). Since that time, he’s supported attaching timelines to funding bills etc.
You are (or, claim to be) a big Hillary booster- what did Clinton do *differently* than Obama to stop the war?
Carleton Wu:
“What exactly did she say ‘no thanks’ to from Congress?”
She said “no thanks” to spending federal money on the Bridge to nowhere — precisely what she said in her big convention speech.
How is this Palin lie any different from the fairy tale lie about Obama being against the war on Iraq? He gave a meaningless speech about Iraq when it did’t matter.
What do you think “being against the war in Iraq” means? Is it possible for anyone other than the 535 members of Congress to be against the war in Iraq?
Ah ha! I finally get what all of this “Hope” and “Change” business has been about:
1. You’re changing Palin’s statements, by truncating her “thanks but no thanks” line, and then
2. You’re hoping that people will believe that Palin told a lie.
She said thanks but not thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere.
The only thing there was for her to say “thanks but no thanks” to was money. Congress was never planning to deliver an already finished bridge for her to install.
And she took the money.
She said “no thanks” to spending federal money on the Bridge to nowhere — precisely what she said in her big convention speech.
At that point, the earmark had been removed, so Congress was not telling her how to spend the money.
She could also claim- just as truthfully- that she said ‘thanks but no thanks to Congress for that funding for involuntary abortions’.
Or, I shall now say ‘no thanks, Adam’ to your offer to engage in joint lewd sex acts with minors.
I think the spirit of the statement is a lie. The audience is meant to take away from it that Palin is a maverick who will turn her back on her own state in order to stand by the country on the principle that the taxpayers’ money should not be wasted on earmarks. The true story is somewhat different. The actual statement used to convey the intended take-away is defensible from a “literal truth” standpoint, but the take-away is not.
The problem with this is that the real story is more complicated than the media can convey to the average voter in ten seconds. The lie is easy to tell, but the truth is hard to explain.
This is easy to see from the discussion here now. Adam challenges the “liar” assessment, and there’s a protracted discussion of the gory details. A certain clause is cited. We’ve got actual figures. We discuss what happened to the money that didn’t build the bridge. We may yet go on to point out what power Palin did or didn’t have over the decision to begin with. And on and on.
Woe to the reporter who tries to explain this. In the time it takes to explain the whole story to a voter, the candidate can repeat the sound bite version of the story ten more times.
To a voter, the Truth can still appear to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors, or a lot of fancy talk from someone just trying to confuse the issue. Meanwhile, Palin’s words are clear and comprehensible.
We’re trying to establish whether Palin’s statements are factually accurate.
Even if her statments regarding the Bridge to Nowhere were factually accurate, they could still be intentionally misleading, which is probably the larger point here. (And I’m not saying they were even factually accurate.)
If she’s so against earmarks, why the lobbyist for Wasilla? And why are they harping on this stupid bridge? Maybe because it’s the only earmark the general public is aware of to any significant degree. It’s obviously calculated to prey on what little knowledge of such things the public actually does have, while taking advantage of the public’s otherwise vast lack of information.
Let’s make statements that will almost certainly mislead the vast majority of people who won’t bother to find out the whole story. That’s not “lying.”
“The only thing there was for her to say ‘thanks but no thanks’ to was money.”
She could have spent the money on the Bridge. She didn’t. And that’s what she said in her speech.
I see that the accusations are starting to repeat themselves. I think Palin can rest easy tonight, knowing that she’s no liar — even if one or two left-wing bloggers think otherwise.
The lie is in presenting herself as an anti-earmark crusader as evidenced by declining the bridge. Her support for the pork waned when the public outcry finally reached the tundra and made Alaska a laughingstock. The lie is that not building the bridge is NOT the same as not lobbying for, aquiring and spending earmarks.
Spending US taxpayer money on the biggest pigs around the pork trough is not improved by the fact they change their minds on what to spend our money on.
So do me a favor, close your eyes and imagine McCain in a sea of lime green sneering with a creepy smile, “thaaaat’s not chaaaange we can belieeeeve in.”
She could have spent the money on the Bridge. She didn’t. And that’s what she said in her speech.
If you paraphrase her to remove the ‘no thanks’ and ‘congress’ parts of her statement, then it’s true. But that is dishonest of you- her statement had her saying ‘no thanks to Congress’ for something. And that something was something that Congress was not telling her to do.
Do you *understand* that point? That claiming to have decline an offer that was not offered is not being honest?
I might add, I say ‘no thanks’ to your offer to help me beat up elementary school children for their lunch money.
Hogan,
At the time Obama was claiming to be against the war on Iraq he had already voted repeatedly to support it.
So I guess you could say he was against it before he was for it, but then that would make him look foolish as well.
Look, the fact is that the fairy tale lie about Obama’s being against the war was swallowed whole by many liberals who did not take the time to examine the actual record. This is exactly what many conservatives do regarding Palin and her lie about the ‘bridge to nowhere’ today.
There is no need to defend the indefensible. If you can be honest enough to admit that Obama is a liar who will do and say anything to get elected you can gain some self respect. But this does not mean you personally do not have to support him.
I will not trust or support Obama. But that is me. My sense is that Obama is in this strictly for himself, that the limit of the ‘change’ he will bring is just getting himself elected, and I do not want him anywhere near the white house.
I suspect McCain and most moderate republicans know that Palin is lying. What troubles me though is that so many democrats do not know that Obama is lying as well. This self delusion is dangerous and unhealthy for our nation.
Carlton Wu hit it right on the head. Any project that she didn’t use the earmark money on, she has “said no” to. She could “truthfully” say, “I said no to the 10 roads leading directly into the Bering Sea.” You know very well what this repeated claim about the bridge is meant to imply Adam. She’s trying to portray this incident as an example of exemplary political courage(particularly in terms of being Mrs. Anti-Earmark), and it is mendacious in the extreme.
Imagine a politician campaigning for an expensive project. They say all sorts of things in support of said project. Then there is a huge outcry in opposition and Congress refuses to earmark money for this project. Next, this same politician uses the fact that the project was never completed as a testament to his/her political courage and judgement. How utterly ridiculous.
Carleton Wu,
You just conjured up an analogy involving the beating of schoolchildren, appropos of nothing? That’s a bit scary.
Anyway, the facts are beyond dispute: Congress gave Alaska money — money that originally would have been required to be spent on the Bridge, but ultimately could be spent on the Bridge or on a variety of other infrastructure projects. Palin decided not to spend it on the Bridge. And now she’s taking credit for that.
If we’re going to draw a proper child-related analogy (without raising the specter of beating children), it would be more like this:
Uncle Joe: Jimmy, as you know, I was going to give you a dollar and make you spend it on a candy bar. But instead I’m just going to give you a dollar, which you can spend it on whatever you want.
Jimmy: Thanks, I’ll spend it on a book. As for the candy bar idea, I’ve got to say thanks but no thanks. If I decide that I want a candy bar, I’ll save up my own money and buy one.
So, under your theory, Jimmy would be lying if he went and told his buddy, “I told my uncle ‘thanks but not thanks’ to a candy bar.” What plainly makes no sense.
Know hope!
How to save taxpayer money.
If Jimmy were trying to convice his friend he didn’t like taking money from his uncle, because taking money from one’s uncle is just plain wrong, by telling him said “no thanks” to a candy bar, would that be okay? Even though Jimmy took the money? (God, this is stupid.)
“But she *did* stop the Bridge to Nowhere”
Congress stopped it. “Stopping” something after it’s been stopped isn’t stopping something.
Nobody outside Alaska would care if Alaska spent money as it would. The whole scandal about the bridge is that the American taxpayer was being charged for a dubious project. Congress stopped that, against Palin’s wishes.
That after that, Palin decided it wasn’t worth Alaska’s money is of interest to Alaskans, but is irrelevant to the original issue.
And she’s claiming that she, not Congress, saved the American taxpaper that money. That’s a lie.
“Look at my first post, above: No one’s disputing that she originally supported the Bridge.”
Except Palin. And McCain.
Gravityhouse:
“She could ‘truthfully’ say, “I said no to the 10 roads leading directly into the Bering Sea.”
Except that no one ever suggested that she spend federal money on 10 roads leading directly into the Bering Sea.
By contrast, there were quite a *lot* of people, including many in Congress, who wanted her to build the Bridge to Nowhere, both at the outset of the legislative debate and upon the legislation’s enactment. And after originally proposing to earmark the money for the Bridge specifically, Congress ultimately changed the legislation to give her a lump sum to spend on the Bridge or other infratructure, which she spent on the latter.
You don’t like that Palin hasn’t said more about the Bridge than those plainly accurate statements found in her convention speech. But that doesn’t make her a liar.
I wish Barack Obama would explain more about the specifics of his tax plan. I think that his (changing) proposals are vague and that they lack crucial context. But that doesn’t make him a liar, either.
Coming from supporters of a campaign so devoted to “hope” or some sort of “new politics,” this attack-dog mentality is a bit jarring.
Hard to keep your stories straight, huh, Ken? One track of the Republicans is that sure Obama was on record against the war, but that was before he was in the US Senate, so it shouldn’t really count. At the time he was running for US Senate, and given the mood of the country whipped into a frenzy by what we now know are lies, it can fairly be called a principled stance.
But you want to ignore your cohorts’ acknowledgment that his support was not only before the war began, but before he was in the US Senate by claiming he supported the war before he was against it! I’m sorry, you will have to go to a site full of stupid uninformed people to sell that load.
I get that you don’t and won’t support Obama, and the reason doesn’t really matter. I’m sure you are exactly clever enough to come up with something. And it sure is easier if you don’t let facts get in your way.
I have to go say “Thanks but no thanks” to my bartender a few times before I stagger home.
“My sense is that Obama is in this strictly for himself,”
My sense is that you’re an incredibly bad troll, who should be ignored.
hairshirthedonist:
“God, this is stupid.”
How do you think I feel? Another commenter asked me to engage a hypothetical about beating schoolchildren.
Gary: Can you point to a single instance when McCain or Palin said that Palin did not originally support the Bridge?
And you’re wrong. Congress didn’t stop the Bridge to nowhere. It wrote a check to Alaska, and Palin declined to spend that money on the Bridge.
Back to my example above: when Uncle Joe gave the money to Jimmy, he didn’t stop Jimmy from buying the candy bar. In fact, if he later claimed to have stopped Jimmy from buying the candy bar, he’d have (to borrow a popular term from around here), he’d have lied.
(Could somebody help Carleton out by translating this analogy into one where children get beaten?)
Adam: She could have spent the money on the Bridge. She didn’t. And that’s what she said in her speech.
Wait, what? That’s not what she said. What she said was:
Nowhere in there did she say that she could have spent Federal monies on the bridge but didn’t… because it would be dumb.
And your Jimmy analogy is broken for the same reason: Jimmy — and Palin — was saying “Thanks but no thanks” to an offer that didn’t exist. There was no requirement to spend those monies on the bridge. How the heck do you refuse — and then take moral credit for! — an offer that no longer exists? I might as well note that I said “Thanks, but no thanks” to sex with Cindy Crawford with equal “honesty”: even if it were literally true that I uttered those words in her direction, it is a blatant lie that I refused anything from her because there was never an offer on the table.
[In fact, it’s worse than that: Palin campaigned for the Bridge previously, as I was referring to above. Not only didn’t she oppose the Bridge, she actively supported it! At least until she might have been forced to pay for it…]
Given that the Wall Street Journal and Palin’s constituents where the bridge was supposed to bedon’t agree with Adam’s interpretation of events, I don’t think this is a fruitful discussion.
So, under your theory, Jimmy would be lying if he went and told his buddy, “I told my uncle ‘thanks but not thanks’ to a candy bar.”
Dare In say- Bingo! If Jimmy were to tell his mother that statement in order to show how his uncle was trying to force candy on him, it would be a lie.
Thanks for playing.
“Coming from supporters of a campaign so devoted to “hope” or some sort of “new politics,” this attack-dog mentality is a bit jarring.”
And here I was earlier today saying over at TIO that concern trolls are relatively rare at ObiWi.
And what on earth is your latest supposed to mean, Adam? No-one is claiming that Congress had actively tried to prevent Palin from building the Bridge and yes, if the Feds claimed that they had, they would be lying. By pretty much anyone’s definition, your slight notwithstanding. This has nothing to do with the present situation, though, so I’m at a loss to think what you’re trying to show here (except your l33t non sequiturs?).
Jimmy, as you know, I was going to give you a dollar and make you spend it on a candy bar.
Wrong. Stevens and Palin asked for the candy bar. So right off, you’ve got the wrong set-up.
But instead I’m just going to give you a dollar, which you can spend it on whatever you want.
So there is no candy bar to say “No” to. Got it.
Jimmy: Thanks, I’ll spend it on a book. As for the candy bar idea, I’ve got to say thanks but no thanks. If I decide that I want a candy bar, I’ll save up my own money and buy one.
Jimmy wanted that candy bar. It was mean Unca Joe who wouldn’t let him have it. For Jimmy to say “Thanks but no thanks” to Unca Joe is just being a brat.
But thanks for showing the lie!
——————–
How do you think I feel?
The obvious answer is in violation of the posting rules.
Carleton,
Where did Palin say that Congress was “forcing” the Bridge upon Alaska?
Congress gave Alaska funds that could have been spent on the Bridge. Palin didn’t spend on them on the Bridge.
Thanks for playing. Know hope!
“Dare I say it?” not sure what my fingers were thinking…
In other news:
At the time Obama was claiming to be against the war on Iraq he had already voted repeatedly to support it.
ie to fund the troops fighting the war. As Hillary has done. Was Hillary wrong? Is she also evil, soulless, and an amoral power-hungry monster?
[DaveC is prohibited from answering this rhetorical question. 🙂 ]
If you can be honest enough to admit that Obama is a liar who will do and say anything to get elected you can gain some self respect.
Difference between ken and a piñata- ken does not burst open to reveal yummy candy when smacked around.
Advantage: piñata
Ken —
Nice attempt to turn this discussion into an issue on Obama’s “selfishness” – is that the word which McCain’s website urges people to use on blogs?
I see your claim that Obama is “just in this for himself”. Oh yeah, and I see that your claim that you don’t trust Obama because of this … just something you feel in your gut.
Cleverly done. You win the booby prize for introducing the most bogus campaign memes in a single comment thread for today.
Now — back to discussing the fact that Sarah Palin and John McCain are lying their asses off, to your face. For someone with such delicate sensibilities, I am surprised that you don’t have any problem with that. Doesn’t raise any trust or credibility issues with you, does it?
— Bokonon
Anarch: “No-one is claiming that Congress had actively tried to prevent Palin from building the Bridge”
Gary: “Congress stopped it.”
Anarch, you need to have a talk with Gary. Either you’re wrong, or he’s “No-one.”
Incidentally, I just saw a news blurb about a mob of lawyers and opposition-researchers that currently is scouring Alaska for dirt on Palin.
Quick question: Is that the Hope Brigade, or the Change Cavalry?
Where did Palin say that Congress was “forcing” the Bridge upon Alaska?
Congress gave Alaska funds that could have been spent on the Bridge. Palin didn’t spend on them on the Bridge.
They could’ve been spent on *anything*, as has already been pointed out to you. So, she didn’t say ‘no thanks’ to Congress, she said ‘thanks, I think Ill spend this on helicopter wolf hunting’ or whatever she actually spent it on.
Or, contrawise, you think she could claim “I said thanks but no thanks to Congress when they offered to sterilize all Alaskan men”. Do you think that she could make that claim & not be lying?
(Just this year, I got my income tax refund and said ‘thanks but no thanks for those hookers, Uncle Sam!’)
btw, you don’t comment on your little scenario with Jimmy? bc that demonstrates the futility of your position- Jimmy’s claim is a lie, and implies that his uncle tried to give him or buy him a candy bar. But that did not occur.
“Gary: Can you point to a single instance when McCain or Palin said that Palin did not originally support the Bridge?”
Sure: “I told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ for that Bridge to Nowhere… If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves.”
Point to where they say or have said “I/Palin originally supported the Bridge, but changed my mind when Congress removed the earmark for it that I favored.”
Any guesses as to how many Maverick Points(tm) Adam is earning today?
I mentioned the Palin rally (McCain was involved somehow) a few hours ago in the Surface Politics thread.
At the very least, I think it’s safe to say Palin doesn’t mind playing fast and loose with the truth.
In addition to the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin charged Obama with being an earmark abuser — a blanket accusation which the crowd of Ohioans ate up. (Meanwhile, I’ve seen allegations that Palin isn’t clean on earmarks.)
It’s one thing to lie or even fudge about your record. It’s quite another to do the same thing about your opponent’s.
Unfortunately, the average voter probably views much of this back-and-forth about the Bridge to Nowhere and earmarks as so much “noise.”
The GOP machine is impressive: Any attempt at setting the Palin record straight is being shot down as attacks on her character or even sexist.
The fact that Palin doesn’t mind distorting the facts one bit tells me she is indeed the future of the Republican Party.
Adam: nice try, but no cigar. I said “actively prevent” for a reason; I’m sure someone of your prowess can discern the difference.
And btw, once, again, Palin did not “decline” to spend the money on the Bridge. It’s a subtle point, but since your entire schtick has been to elide the these crucial distinctions, it should be noted explicitly once again that there was no offer to decline. She chose not to spend those monies on the Bridge after having a) supported the Bridge wholeheartedly until b) Congress didn’t fund it completely. Which she has then proceeded to lie about, thus returning us to this thread.
Why are we focusing on “thanks, but no thanks,” which is vague enough to allow our stupid trolls to distract us?
This quote is actually better for demonstrating the lie:
This is precisely the opposite of what happened. Congress said that if Alaska wanted a bridge, it would have to build it on its own. Her whole statement is just blatantly false.
Donald Johnson: “And here I was earlier today saying over at TIO that concern trolls are relatively rare at ObiWi.”
Me too.
Adam: “Is that the Hope Brigade, or the Change Cavalry?”
Is there a chance you might consider replacing “Hope” and “Change” with “Reality.”
FWIW, the GE has drifted off from Reality to the point where it’s making me wistful for the primary season.
Incidentally, I just saw a news blurb about a mob of lawyers and opposition-researchers that currently is scouring Alaska for dirt on Palin.
omg, they’re doing oppo research on Palin? Sexism!
Is that the Hope Brigade, or the Change Cavalry?
It’s the Ex Post Facto McCain Vetting Team!
Aren’t you tired of being WRONG? Just plain, flat out, stunningly WRONG?
Of course, McCain’s people are just jealous that they didn’t think of that first- going to Alaska and seeing what people there had to say about her. What a novel idea!
Gary,
It’s hard to keep up with you today. First you said that McCain and Palin “disputed” whether Palin initially supported the bridge. Now you’re complaining that they didn’t expressly say that she originally supported the bridge.
I must say, that’s a pretty novel definition of “disputed.”
Carleton, I’m not sure which iteration of the Jimmy analogy you’re referring to (the thread’s getting a bit complex, and I’m having a hard enough time trying to keep up with the flurry of posts). You’ll have to point it out, for me to respond to later tonight.
In any event, I feel pretty satisfied with where things have ended up. There seems to be no real dispute that there’s anything factually inaccurate about Palin’s actual words. You all seem to be complaining that she didn’t say *enough*.
In short, she didn’t “lie.” You just think she didn’t speak with enough candor or details. Again, if that’s the new definition of “lie,” then I wish Barak Obama would stop “lying” about his tax plan and offer more details.
I don’t think this is remarkable. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature would do that.
To continue with this sophomoric analogy:
Jimmy wanted that candy bar. It was mean Unca Joe who wouldn’t let him have it. For Jimmy to say “Thanks but no thanks” to Unca Joe is just being a brat.
Not quite; once mean Unca Joe decided he’d only give Jimmy 75 cents of the dollar to buy that candy bar, Jimmy, being a petulant brat, said “Screw this, I’m not paying one red cent for a candy bar if Unca Joe won’t give it to me for free. I’m going to buy other toys instead.”
So no, Palin gets no points for any moral fiber on this issue at all… but I suppose she does get the salubrious designation of a cheapskate. With her money, at least; with other people’s money, well, that’s a whole ‘nother story.
On preview: Oh good lord,
There seems to be no real dispute that there’s anything factually inaccurate about Palin’s actual words. You all seem to be complaining that she didn’t say *enough*.
I rarely say this, but dude: learn to read.
Adam is probably ROLLING in Maverick Points from this and other forums … particularly if he is also posting here as “Ken.”
Maybe Adam has even collected enough to points to get that crown jewel of all McCain paraphenialia … the McCain commemorative golf balls!
Unfortunately, Adam will have to play all golf alone, because of that awful hygiene problem trolls have. Phew!
Now, back to the issue about MCCAIN LYING HIS ASS OFF, and CHALLENGING PEOPLE TO CARE ABOUT IT.
Thanks for playing. Know hope!
What? Oppo research on Palin? Aren’t we supposed to just wait and let her tell us what she wants us to know?
You know, in her own special, special way? Free of the encumbrances of fact or reality?
Won’t the press jump in and expose the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Why are those oppo bastards bothering to check for themselves?
Carleton, I’m not sure which iteration of the Jimmy analogy you’re referring to (the thread’s getting a bit complex, and I’m having a hard enough time trying to keep up with the flurry of posts). You’ll have to point it out, for me to respond to later tonight.
Jesus effing christ, there were only four posts with the word “jimmy” in them before my comment (other than the ones you wrote- presumably you’re not confused by *those*). This is the lamest dodge I believe I’ve ever seen.
Ill point it out. Edit=>Find, then type in “jimmy”. Find the *one* posted by me before my comment. That’s the one you’re looking for.
But heck, Im generous, Ill recap- if Jimmy claims that he said ‘thanks but no thanks’ to his uncle’s offer of a candy bar, he is lying. It doesnt make sense to you only because Jimmy has no reason to tell this lie to his friend. So, imagine he tells this to his mother in order to accuse his uncle of trying to force candy on him. It is a *lie*, it is not true, it makes claims about the world that have the truth value of “not true”. His uncle did not try to force a candy bar on him, so he cannot have declined such an offer. He declined *nothing*, so a claim of having declined something from his uncle is *not true*.
In any event, I feel pretty satisfied with where things have ended up. There seems to be no real dispute that there’s anything factually inaccurate about Palin’s actual words. You all seem to be complaining that she didn’t say *enough*.
In short, she didn’t “lie.” You just think she didn’t speak with enough candor or details.
I am also satisfied with where things have ended up.
Im glad that we could all agree that there’s no question that she lied through her lying teeth. There seems to be no dispute that she could not have said ‘no thanks’ to Congress when she accepted the money and Congress was not telling her what to do with it. That she did not decline anything from Congress at all.
In short, she’s a lying liar; you just think that if you paraphrase the statement to remove the world “no thanks” and “Congress” that it’s true.
Well, we learned two things today: the McCain trolls don’t actually understand what an earmark is, and doing oppo research is Evil. Guess those McCain staffers following Obama around are just my overactive imagination. Anybody wanna guess that the Approved Message of the Day is tomorrow? I might wanna go for that McCain coffee mug myself.
Adam: “You just think she didn’t speak with enough candor or details.”
Does that mean you don’t expect “candor” or “details” for your President?
If so, you must think George W. Bush has done a terrific job.
And the Sarah Palin distraction continues to be an epic success for McCain.
The bridge to nowhere is not the only claim that Palin and McCain are wording so carefully that the normal person’s interpretation will be counter to the facts.
How about the plane? She says “I put it up on eBay!” Apparently, yes, she did, but it didn’t SELL on eBay. (It sold through a broker for a loss.) However, you are meant to think that it did. In fact, John McCain initially didn’t get the careful distinction and said she had sold it on eBay for a profit.
Even if you could carefully parse someone’s words and say they are telling the truth, it certainly isn’t “the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth”.
Some of the people posting here can say “She told the truth!”, but you certainly can’t say “She’s an honest person” based on these statements. And yet that’s the persona she’s trying to present–just a down-to-earth, honest person.
And the Sarah Palin distraction continues to be an epic success for McCain.
I don’t think so: this is sort of like distracting the traffic cop from writing you a speeding ticket by punching him in the nose. Yes, you’ve deflected the original issue for a bit, but you’re not exactly better off.
McCain picked this trainwreck. This was his first real major executive decision. If and when she crashes and burns hard, he’s done. There will be no replacements.
Ugh: “And the Sarah Palin distraction continues to be an epic success for McCain.”
They say sarcasm only works if you can see the truth in it.
Alas, is Palin today’s Hot Thing or does she have legs?
If McCain loses, it’s curtains for him, my friends. But Palin — who has the devotion of the right and the Evangelicals — is here to stay.
Meanwhile, the Palin pick was a stroke of genius by someone — and certainly not McCain, who allegedly wanted Ridge or Lieberman.
Let’s face it: She has been a game-changer. No other pick could have revived McCain’s campaign or given him this kind of bounce in the polls.
“…particularly if he is also posting here as ‘Ken.'”
Definitely not; wholly different styles.
Adam isn’t playing in more good faith than “ken.” He’s just, well, it’s difficult to characterize ken without violating the posting rules as regards what might be considered abuse. It likely wouldn’t cross the line if I observed that ken isn’t the brightest candle on the cake.
Ken has never been more than a troll, and should be ignored. At this point, Adam shows no signs of being other than a smarter troll.
Bottom line for Adam is that he’s here to say what it takes to justify Palin and McCain.
Bored, now.
DNFFTs.
There seems to be no real dispute that there’s anything factually
inaccurate about Palin’s actual words.Fixed!
“How about the plane?”
How about the governor’s chef?
Well, hey, at least under our McCain/Palin overlords, we can look forward to more politicization of the military.
Folks, it’s time for Sarah Palin to become a distraction to the Republican base.
The conventional wisdom of the moment is that a lot of people who were lukewarm to McCain are now enthusiastic about the McCain-Palin ticket. McCain done good! He picked a Christian hockey mom!! Finally, one of their very own on a national ticket!!!
So let’s ask those Palin enthusiasts: how much attention do you think a President McCain will actually pay to a Vice President Palin, if they win? What do you think he will actually take her advice about, when he has a federal government to run?
–TP
“There seems to be no real dispute that there’s anything factually inaccurate about Palin’s actual words.”
Obviously, Palin’s words are not “factually accurate”, in that unless there was an address by her to Congress that I’ve missed out on, she did not literally say “thanks but no thanks” to Congress. That’s obvious, and also besides the point: no one would mind if Congress had offered the money and she had declined it, without saying it in those words, and had described that as saying “thanks but no thanks.”
But what we keep saying is: Congress did not offer her the money to build the bridge. It offered her unrestricted funds, which she accepted. Moreover, while campaigning she said she would try to get those funds, and supported Congress giving them. And she only changed her mind because they didn’t give her all the money she wanted.
The question is not whether her words are “factually accurate”. Of course they aren’t, but not in a way that’s necessarily problematic. The question is, is there anything she did do that could plausibly be construed as “saying thanks but no thanks”? It would have to be (a) an offer that Congress made, which (b) she declined.
There is no such offer of a bridge, or the funding for it.
Tony P raises some good points. But as I see it, McCain will be content on letting Palin handle the domestic side — and he’ll be content with the Commander-in-Chief role.
ericblair: McCain picked this trainwreck. This was his first real major executive decision. If and when she crashes and burns hard, he’s done. There will be no replacements.
I was betting on September 12th, when Palin will have provided a fortnight’s distraction but before the really nasty stories about her antics in Alaska get out.
*makes popcorn*
The ebay thing is at most mildly misleading. She DID put it up on ebay, it’s not her fault it didn’t find a buyer. Good gesture, good joke, good try, she never claimed success.
I heard a rumor, which I do not remotely have the interest in tracking down, that the Alaska Legislature had already cut the funding for the plane’s fuel & maintenance, so she kinda had to sell it. If that’s the case, she still didn’t quite lie, but she misled in that she deliberately implied that she, not her legislature, made that decision.
“Good gesture, good joke, good try, she never claimed success.”
John McCain:
Simpsons episode: Mr. Plow.
Homer (to Ned): Forget it, pal. I don’t need your phoney baloney job. I’ll take your money, but I’m not gonna plow your driveway!
Palin (to Congress): I’ve decided not to build the bridge…I still get the money, right?
Gary, that always happens when people with no sense of humor try to retell a joke.
MaCain: Oh and you gotta hear this other line Sarah had the other day…
Probably the first time the Presidential candidate has become the surrogate for the VP candidate.
If I were a Republican, I would find Palin’s story appealing enough: Former beauty queen turned sportscaster marries her high school sweetheart. Becomes mayor of her hometown, then governor, fights the old-boy network in getting there. Has five kids in what is a modern-day all-American family, raising them in America’s Last Frontier.
What’s not to like?
Then you add in all of the embellishments, and it’s no wonder they are going ga-ga over Palin. This was a party without a star.
It helps that Palin is a good and confident communicator with, and this hurts a little to say, charisma.
As miserable as Republicans must have been in the winter and spring — when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were getting all the attention — that’s how exhuberant they are now.
You just didn’t see excited, elbow-to-elbow crowds for McCain like the one they had in Ohio today pre-Palin. Hillary’s crowds used to be filled with middle-aged and older women; Palin’s crowds look much younger, filled with chanting mothers and daughters.
So they’ve definitely tapped into something.
The good news if you are a Democrat is that 56 days in a presidential campaign is a lifetime and I don’t think the Palin wave alone is enough to ride into the White House.
They say it every four years, but the Debates really do seem like they could be Decisive this time.
“Jesus effing christ, there were only four posts with the word “jimmy” in them before my comment (other than the ones you wrote- presumably you’re not confused by *those*).”
Carleton: Did you mean this? Because I already responded to it. As I already said, Palin never said that Congress tried to force Alaska to take a bridge, so your analogy is inapt. How many times am I supposed to point that out to you?
I was betting on September 12th, when Palin will have provided a fortnight’s distraction but before the really nasty stories about her antics in Alaska get out.
Respectfully disagree here. For professional political types, this would mean Eagleton Eagleton Eagleton. Guaranteed political suicide to replace a veep on the ticket. Try to BS your way through it and hope a miracle happens.
Reason number two: replacing her would mean realizing that they had made a mistake, admitting that mistake, and taking steps to fix it. Based on the Republican’s actions regarding Iraq, their record on this is…poor.
Really depressing thread. I understand civility is the preferred MO here but rather than getting caught up with trolls, how about making phone calls? Every minute wasted responding to a troll is another minute taken away from a GOTV effort.
Carleton: Did you mean this? Because I already responded to it. As I already said, Palin never said that Congress tried to force Alaska to take a bridge, so your analogy is inapt. How many times am I supposed to point that out to you?
Yes, I mean that comment. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Im glad my helpful hint on using ‘find’ was so fruitful for you.
First, I hate to break it to you, but if you’ll review the thread you’ll notice that it was *your* analogy…
Being an analogy, it is imperfect. But the fact remains that not only did Congress not attempt the *force* the bridge upon Alaska, they did not suggest, coerce, cajole, imply, or hint that the bridge ought to be built by Alaska. By the time Palin was governor, the only thing Congress did was say “here’s some money”.
So when Palin claims she ‘said no thanks to Congress’, she was lying, because Congress was not trying to do anything other than give her that money (which she accepted). She *did* end the bridge project, but that’s not at issue. What’s at issue is that claiming to have turned down an offer when that offer did not exist is lying.
The press will be writing its own declaration of irrelevance. Interesting times indeed.
This really is quite interesting. We also have a flat out lie about sex ed for kindergarteners and that using the phrase “lipstick on a pig” is the same as saying “Palin is a pig.” They’re daring the press to put time and pixels into calling them liars above the fold, or let the lies continue above the fold while corrections reside on page A18.
Wish I could be confident newscasts would lead with “The McCain camp has lied 23 times in the past few days about the bridge to nowhere. They know they’re lying, and they just don’t care–they don’t think voters will call them on it.” But I won’t hold my breath.
Hilzoy: “Congress did not offer her the money to build the bridge.”
Of course it did. It gave Alaska a large chunk of money, originally earmarked for the Bridge specifically, and then modified to be spent on general infrastructure, including the Bridge. The Bridge was still an available project on which the money could be spent, until Palin pulled the plug.
It’s quite interesting how narrow Hilzoy’s complaints are. She says that Palin lied because “she did not literally say ‘thanks but no thanks” to Congress.'” But no one seriously takes Palin’s words so literally. She issued a press release that discussed Congress’s offer of funds and her decision not to dismiss the Bridge project. To all but the most hard-core anti-GOP partisans, that’s clearly sufficient.
And, as noted at the outset of this comment, Congress did offer money for the Bridge project (initially proposed as an earmark, and then as a general appropriation), and Palin spent it on other infrastructure, instead.
Incidentally, I look forward to Publius and Hilzoy turning their literalistic analysis and laser focus on all of the candidates. Here’s a question: did Obama lie about his opposition to the Illinois born-alive act?
Go to town, Publius and Hilzoy! Tolerate not the slightest factual inaccuracy. And know hope!
Adam,
Im going to try this again. All flaming aside:
Congress gave Alaska funds that could have been spent on the Bridge. Palin didn’t spend on them on the Bridge.
If Palin claimed that she said ‘thanks but no thanks’ to Congress for [insert any program], would that not be just as true, since Congress was not telling Alaska how to spend the money?
I only see two possible cases for you here:
1)she can make this claim about anything- ie ‘I said thanks but no thanks to Congress for 220 million buttplugs’ and it’s not a lie, because of the nature of the statement (ie she could’ve spent the money on buttplugs, but she didn’t, as in your quote above)
2)she can make this claim because, before she was governor, the money had been intended for the bridge- making other claims like the buttplug claim would be lies, but something about the history here makes her claim not a lie
Sometimes you seem to be defending position 1 (eg above), and sometimes position 2 (eg ‘jimmy’). Maybe if you clarify which one you think is correct we could get closer to an understanding. In my experience shifting arguments is a sign of trolling, so prove me wrong- pick one and stick to it.
“I understand civility is the preferred MO here”
Surely, this comment is in jest, right? The post begins with accusing Sarah Palin of telling “lies” and saying that “McCain knows he can pretty much get away with anything.”
But I agree with your suggestion that the debate has run its course.
Incidentally, I look forward to Publius and Hilzoy turning their literalistic analysis and laser focus on all of the candidates. Here’s a question: did Obama lie about his opposition to the Illinois born-alive act?
Hilzoy did this already. Read the dang archives before trying to act superior & failing.
Hilzoy- prescient troll-smack WIN
Carleton,
Since you posted right before I sent my last post, I’ll make a quick response.
First, I must say that I’m loathe to try to discuss anything one someone who’s so eager to pepper posts with references to child-beating and “buttplugs.”
Second, the appropriation couldn’t have been spent on (I can’t believe I’m typing this) “buttplugs. So your hypothetical is inapt.
Third, I haven’t shifted arguments. Congress clearly made the money for all transportation projects — it initially identified the money specifically for the Bridge, and then it ultimately made it available for all projects, including the Bridge. The fact that the money was possibly to be spent on the Bridge is obvious from the September 2007 announcement canceling the bridge, as well as the Alaska Democrats web site item noting that Palin shut down the Bridge when she refused to spend the federal appropriation on it.
I’ve not broken my claim into either of the types of arguments that you propose, so I won’t fall for your false dichotomy.
It’s been fun.
Attempts to engage Adam are useful only insofar as they keep him from making GOTV phone calls, assuming he’s doing so. And, maybe, as an entertaining break from making one’s own phone calls.
To bring the Adamapalooza back on topic a wee bit: it’s people like Adam who are keeping the MSM in business. The 30% or so deadenders plus the 10% or so chronically low-information voters/viewers add up to a very viable audience.
The crunch is going to come as the TV-and-newspaper generation dies off, and the generations raised on the new information technologies take its place. That doesn’t mean news will improve, only that the delivery systems for it will shift. Unfortunately, as long as the delivery systems continue to be dominated by a few major media companies, the same constraints that keep traditional media from actually doing their job will have the same dampening effect.
It’ll be interesting to see if true alt.news sites, like TPM, can continue to do real reporting as they get bigger, more successful, and thus more expensive. They’re already running ads for groups and viewpoints contrary to their issue pov. I don’t mind that at all: web ads are easier to ignore than TV ads, at least for now.
The challenge is going to be keeping the issue pov free of pressure from advertiser pressure when and if sites like TPM become significant players in the media/news game.
Surely, this comment is in jest, right?
It refers to the way posters treat each other, not so much to how they treat others. Which actually kinda bugs me in an abstract way, but it keeps the conversation from getting ugly. Basically, don’t make unsupported accusations, don’t go name-calling, don’t threadjack.
On the one hand, if we didn’t have a minimum of civility things would probably get uglier even faster than they usually do. Otoh if we applied these rules to non-posters, the board would be somewhat neutered.
Observe that ken is allowed to get away with his anti-Obama nuttiness in virtually every thread; if you spend any time at right-wing sites like Redstate, ask yourself how long the anti-ken would last there…
“Hilzoy did this already. Read the dang archives before trying to act superior & failing.”
Admittedly I’m not a regular reader, but I’ve not seen a post where Hilzoy responded to news reports documenting the fact that, contrary to his prior statement, Obama actually voted against an Illinois born-alive act that had the very protections that he claimed were absent.
So Carleton, please stop “trying to act superior & failing.”
Admittedly I’m not a regular reader, but I’ve not seen a post where Hilzoy responded to news reports documenting the fact that, contrary to his prior statement
Google. Use Google. If you do not know how to use Google to search a specific site for a specific phrase, I can explain it to you. As can Google.
I mean, if I were going to call someone out for not responding to something, Id use Google first to avoid looking like a fool. Id do it twice if someone had just advised me that the person did, in fact, comment on the subject in question. Rather than basically admitting to not knowing how to use the internets.
If you don’t know how to use Google and are unwilling to learn, just say so and Ill link to the post where hilzoy explains her position on the issue in the comments.
To clarify, if you’d just asked whether hil had considered the matter, Id have politely posted a link. But you wanted to act superior, as if she were only interested in the truth when it suited her.
Which means you don’t know hilzoy.
First, I must say that I’m loathe to try to discuss anything one someone who’s so eager to pepper posts with references to child-beating and “buttplugs.”
Yah, whatever. Just keeping things colorful. Folks who live here demand infotainment with their opinionating.
Second, the appropriation couldn’t have been spent on (I can’t believe I’m typing this) “buttplugs. So your hypothetical is inapt.
Sure, let’s say ‘a 10-lane road from Fairbanks to Nome’ (which is kinda like a buttplug insofar as I dont want either one of them in my butt). I know that you understood that already, but if you must go by baby-steps, so be it.
I’ve not broken my claim into either of the types of arguments that you propose, so I won’t fall for your false dichotomy.
It’s pretty straightforward. If Palin said “I said thanks but no thanks to Congress for that 10-lane highway from Fairbanks to Nome”, would that be a lie?
If you think that the history of the project is what prevents it from being a lie, you’re in category 2. If you think that she can make this claim about any transportation project (as you did with this argument Congress gave Alaska funds that could have been spent on the Bridge. Palin didn’t spend on them on the Bridge then you’re in category 2.
There is no frigging false dichotomy- you either think the history is necessary for it to be true or you don’t. There is no middle ground. There is no third case. If you think there is a third case, you could try explaining why, rather than dodging.
As I said, it was a test- someone who really wanted to discuss it would’ve identified their case at this point. Instead, you chose obfuscations.
I really have avoided posting on this thread until it appeared Adam was gone. Even if he does respond I won’t to him since he is obviously stuck in a spot where illogic occassionally takes people and is unwilling to respond to any kind of logic.
My question is why so many people (yes you Carlton) expended so much energy trying to convince someone of a fact that is so obvious my three year old grandson could see it when that person obviously has no desire to accept it as fact and will go to absurd langths to justify it as not being fact.
The more important question, and the only only referred to now and then is what is going to be done about these lies (of which the bridge is only one example among many)?
My best guess is that nothing will be done. If the media attempts to expose it it is becuse they are obviously liberal commie piko socialist sympathizers so therefore they can be ignored.
ericblairI don’t think so: this is sort of like distracting the traffic cop from writing you a speeding ticket by punching him in the nose. Yes, you’ve deflected the original issue for a bit, but you’re not exactly better off.
I hope so. I don’t think so, but I hope so. She has been the story since the day after the Democratic convention, basically nonstop, some 10 days now. In that time, she’s been exposed as corrupt, a liar, vindictive, greedy, etc. etc. etc. She’s still going strong (so it appears to me).
The only way to defuse this is to ignore her. Pound on McCain. Over and over again: McCain = Bush, McCain = Bush, McCain = Bush, McCain = Bush, McCain = Bush.
If not, maybe the narrative will turn on its own when the Presidential debates come around and people realize that McCain is running for President, and I hope so, but, well, the current situation is worrisome to me (and I will admit I dismissed the Palin pick out of hand when made; props to OCSteve calling it a winner).
“I understand civility is the preferred MO here”
Surely, this comment is in jest, right? The post begins with accusing Sarah Palin of telling “lies” and saying that “McCain knows he can pretty much get away with anything.”
This refers to civility towards fellow commenters, I think. We assume that each others’ arguments are meant in good faith for the sake of having a productive discussion. It doesn’t always work, obviously.
A politics blog that was too civil to point out lies told by public figures would be… uninformative.
My question is why so many people (yes you Carlton) expended so much energy trying to convince someone of a fact that is so obvious my three year old grandson could see it when that person obviously has no desire to accept it as fact and will go to absurd langths to justify it as not being fact.
Partially it’s fun. Partially because it refines my argumentation- you know you’ve got an airtight case when the other person hops to a different argument, jumps to a tangent, etc. I don’t expect an actual concession.
Partially because Adam’s head isn’t spinning around & spewing bile yet, so I’ve hopes that he can be training into a padawan for OCSteve; he needs more company. Once he sees that most here are neither spin-doctors nor hate-mongers.
Adam, I mean that last bit- ObWi is a good place. Folks are friendly. There are even some right-wingers floating around here and there. If you lay off of the crazy-juice just a little bit, you might find it a good place to
get piled on every time you open your mouthhang out with people of different political opinions.And if you haven’t found that thread where hilzoy says that Obama lied, try googling on something like:
obama “born alive” illinois hilzoy site:obsidianwings.blogs.com
Incidentally, I look forward to Publius and Hilzoy turning their literalistic analysis and laser focus on all of the candidates.
You will never see it. Facts really don’t matter around here. This is a place for narrow minded shallow idealogues who call themselves liberals and think themselves educated.
and I will admit I dismissed the Palin pick out of hand when made; props to OCSteve calling it a winner).
I still think that McCain’s campaign is thinking day-to-day or week-to-week, while Obama is thinking longer-term. Palin still looks terribly weak to me- there’s every chance that blunders such as her not understanding the Fannie/Freddie issue at all will come back to bite her.
It was a nice pick for capturing the news cycle. A bad pick for governing the country. And, I think, a worse one for that long stretch of October when people will want to ask more challenging questions than “whats your recipe for moose stew?”
You will never see it.
oh, ken, will you never learn preview? I’ve already explained how to find hilzoy calling Obama’s statement a lie. *you* may never see it, but only if you never look.
As for the rest- violating the posting rules never gets old for you, does it? Does it make you feel naughty in a special way?
I am getting the whiff of a sockpuppet.
DNFTT.
Well, the thread’s pretty much boned at this point; anyway, Im mostly keeping on bc Ive always dreamed of having over 50% of the posts in a single thread, and Im coming up on the finish line here. 🙂
Seriously, Im working, and I have to keep rebooting this &$^@# server that Im working on, so I keep having these short periods when I can either post something or get into a staring contest with one of the pets. I always lose those, so posting is easier on my ego.
I will tell you guys again: feed the trolls the worm of doubt — keep asking them how much influence VP Palin will have in a McCain administration. Does a tough-talking long-time Senator really plan to ask a hockey-mom’s advice about anything? Or will she merely be his trophy veep?
–TP
john miller: “My best guess is that nothing will be done. If the media attempts to expose it it is becuse they are obviously liberal commie piko socialist sympathizers so therefore they can be ignored.”
AC360 just spent a second night trying to set the record straight on The Bridge to Nowhere. Can’t speak for “Countdown” — but I’m sure Olbermann is doing his part to right a wrong.
I forget who but someone said on Anderson Cooper’s panel how ballsy — how shameful — it is for Palin to twist The Bridge to Nowhere into something that makes her look like a reformer.
So with all due respect to CaseyL — “the crunch is going to come as the TV-and-newspaper generation dies off” — MSM news outlets are putting forth the truth.
Right now — if polls are to be any judge — the public isn’t buying it or doesn’t care. Daivd Gergen kept saying this will change; I hope so.
What’s with all the shrieking trolls lately – not just here but at other left of center blogs? I detect more than a whiff of hysteria.
(BTW ken, as someone who just spent many k of bandwidth splitting hairs down to and beyond the atomic level, it’s amusing for you to accuse Hilzoy and Publius of being ‘literalistic’. Since it would break posting rules to call you a clown, I’ll just laugh instead).
My guess is that these people somehow know that their Movement-thing is ending, and that this (Palin) is probably their last gush of PR momentum for a while. Perhaps unpacking their wads of shyster* arguments one more time (as it were) makes them feel better. Ken surely knows that he will convince no one here with his laughable argument. Maybe he thinks he’s fighting the good fight. But it’s really the last hurrah. Even in the unlikely even that McCain wins this election, he won’t have a parliamentary GOP in congress to rubber stamp his initiatives. Whether it ends with a bang or whimper, the Conservative Revolution is on its last legs. Thank god, and good riddance.
*no disrespect meant to lawyers on the whole. Just intellectual shysters like ken.
via Drum’s comments section,
Romano at Newsweek’s blog has a Palin holding pro-bridge T-shirt photo plus commentary and a link to the Obama campaign’s first response ad.
The Palin distraction will end the day that the GOP campaign publishes a video or audio tape with Osama endorsing Obama. Then it will be the sequel to “Osama endorses Kerry. Vote Bush”. And since the “liberal media” will follow suit it will be enough to tilt the electorate enough that a little push from Diebold will make the Son of Cain POTUS and the Plain One POTUS in waiting.