PDA

View Full Version : Analysis: McCain's claims skirt facts, test voters


Richard Tafoya
Sep 12th, 2008, 02:00 AM
AP:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/analysis_mccains_claims_skirt.php

The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.

Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.

...

Politicians usually modify or drop claims when a string of newspaper and TV news accounts concludes they are untrue or greatly exaggerated. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, conceded she had not come under sniper fire in Bosnia after a batch of debunking articles subjected her to scorn during her primary contest against Obama.

But McCain and his running mate Palin, the Alaska governor, were defiant this week in the face of similar reports. Day after day she said she had told Congress "no thanks" to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, a rural Alaska project that was abandoned when critics challenged its costs and usefulness. For nearly a week, major news outlets had documented that Palin supported the bridge when running for governor in 2006, noting that she turned against it only after it became an object of ridicule in Alaska and a symbol of Congress's out-of-control earmarking.

The McCain-Palin campaign made at least three other aggressive claims this week that omitted key details or made dubious assumptions to criticize Obama. It equated lawmakers' requests for money for special projects with corruption, even though Palin has sought nearly $200 million in such "earmarks" this year.

DoubleEdgeSword
Sep 12th, 2008, 07:17 AM
The politics of arrogance.

With the Bush spin team behind the McCain/Palin campaign, could we expect any less?

Richard Tafoya
Sep 12th, 2008, 10:38 AM
They're applying the Rove doctrine that if you say anything often enough--even if it's proven to be completely false--lots of people will believe it's true.

SparkleHugs
Sep 12th, 2008, 12:00 PM
I wish people werent so stupid.

I wish more that the stupid people didnt vote.

Richard Tafoya
Sep 12th, 2008, 01:12 PM
Well, there will always be single-issue voters. For some people, this election is all about ending the Iraq war. For some, it's about overturning Roe v Wade. For some, it's about the economy and which candidate's approach seems best.

But sadly, for a lot of people, it's a likeability contest, and McCain has made a decision to focus on that angle because when his advisers worked for Bush, they contend that they were able to turn those elections in Bush's favor based on personal likeability.

SparkleHugs
Sep 12th, 2008, 03:06 PM
but this election cant over turn roe v. wade alot of things must happen before that can even be a possibility. Are people unaware of this?

I don't really think McCain and Palin are likable at all. :o

Richard Tafoya
Sep 12th, 2008, 03:49 PM
He just needs to appoint one or two more conservative justices to the Supreme Court that agree that it should be overturned and it's a done deal. That's what he's promising to so.

SparkleHugs
Sep 12th, 2008, 04:27 PM
but one or two more conservative justices have to die/retire first. are any of them willing to do that? How is their health?

Richard Tafoya
Sep 12th, 2008, 04:41 PM
John Paul Stevens is 88. Scalia and Kennedy are both 72. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 75.

Stevens and Ginsburg are considered to make up half of the "liberal wing" of the court and Kennedy is generally a more centrist swing vote.

SparkleHugs
Sep 12th, 2008, 04:46 PM
well crap. :nc:

Just so I understand what you were saying, can they just overturn something without a new case being presented? If 5 of any of them decide to overturn any case can they do that?

WannaBreatheYou
Sep 12th, 2008, 04:49 PM
well crap. :nc:

Just so I understand what you were saying, can they just overturn something without a new case being presented? If 5 of any of them decide to overturn any case can they do that?
In a word, yes. That's why every election has been so important, and this one is even more important. If those oldest Justices retire or pass away, it doesn't look good for Roe v. Wade should McCain be elected.

Richard Tafoya
Sep 12th, 2008, 05:17 PM
And there are a whole bunch of new cases working their way through the lower courts that are prime fuel for a Roe v Wade showdown during McCain's term if he wins.

tiger_rascal
Sep 13th, 2008, 10:56 AM
well crap. :nc:

:laugh:

SparkleHugs
Sep 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM
In a word, yes. That's why every election has been so important, and this one is even more important. If those oldest Justices retire or pass away, it doesn't look good for Roe v. Wade should McCain be elected.

I had my con law professor tell me otherwise. So i was hopeful it wasn't as easy as everyone seemed to make it.

pinky
Sep 13th, 2008, 12:42 PM
I think that with 6 of the 9 current Justices being 68 or older, there is a greater than usual chance for the next President to have a significant impact on jurisprudence. And the effect could last a VERY long time. If even just 4 or 5 Justices were to be appointed at ages comparable to Roberts and Alito, the Court could see little change for nearly 30 years.