Another day, another lie from Palin/McCain

[iplaw]

First, factcheck.org is not the only arbiter of truth in this campaign.  Other news organizations like ABC have rightly smacked the Obama campaign for false ads they have run recently (i.e., the Spanish ad) which factcheck.org has conveniently failed to address.

Again, is this the first presidential campaign you payed attention to?

This crap from both sides is par for the course.

Once I see you tear up an Obama ad I'll believe that you actually care about fairness or truth.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

First, factcheck.org is not the only arbiter of truth in this campaign.  Other news organizations like ABC have rightly smacked the Obama campaign for false ads they have run recently (i.e., the Spanish ad) which factcheck.org has conveniently failed to address.

Again, is this the first presidential campaign you payed attention to?

This crap from both sides is par for the course.

Once I see you tear up an Obama ad I'll believe that you actually care about fairness or truth.

You do notice that factcheck usually doesn't address a specific ad for two to three days at a time, right?  Probably because they are 'factchecking'.  Something which BOTH parties are lax at, but lately, on moreso than another.

One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.

My reason for one over the other is because McCain, in a speech earlier this year, said he intended not 'to take the low road' in this campaign.

Another deception?  Obviously.  But then why would I expect a career politician, especially a Repub, to tell the truth.  We've had 8 years of BS from Bush.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss



One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.

Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.

Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth.  Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.

I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race.  It's a sleazy business.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hoss



One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.

Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.

Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth.  Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.

I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race.  It's a sleazy business.

We can definitely agree on that.  I will say I think Factcheck.org doesn't appear to have an agenda either way.  I don't like citing info from purely partisan sources (freerepublic for the right, obviously someplace like dailykos for the left).  But the vitriol coming out on both sides can be hard to wade through.

One thing is for sure though, this is one of the most emotionally charged races in recent memory.

BTW, has anybody been to Phat Philly's yet?  Went there today for lunch and it wasn't too bad.  A lot of my companions didn't agree with me, but I liked it.

[Conan71]

Prolly a whole lot you and I agree on.  I dislike you a whole lot less than the other libs around here. [}:)][]

Factcheck is an offshoot from the Annenberg Foundation and it's various think tanks.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/

Probably as close to balanced as you will see.

[swake]

And another:


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html

   "Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill."
   --McCain video release, September 18, 2008.

An already nasty presidential election campaign is getting nastier. The meltdown on Wall Street has touched off frantic attempts by both the McCain and Obama camps to secure political advantage and indulge in guilt by association. Over the last 24 hours, both campaigns have issued video press releases (let's not call them ads until they actually air somewhere) attempting to show that the other side's "advisers" are somehow responsible for the crisis. The latest McCain attack is particularly dubious.

The Facts

The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African-American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae.

The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a Style section profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls, and will let you know if I receive a reply.
The Pinocchio Test

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself--and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

[Rico]

^

Why would you need anyone else's advice when you have Carly Fiorina (Queen of the outsourcing.....

"No American has a God given right to a job." Carly Fiorina..

Boy did you see that golden gilded
parachute Carly Fiorina...

Hewlett Packard is her Legacy Carly Fiorina..

I don't know why they keep Gramm around when they have Carly Fiorina.

[swake]

Another documented Palin lie from Troopergate

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5844710&page=1

[Conan71]

I'm not sure, but I think Swake might secretly be shilling for Obama.

[Crash Daily]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hoss



One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.

Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.

Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth.  Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.

I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race.  It's a sleazy business.

We can definitely agree on that.  I will say I think Factcheck.org doesn't appear to have an agenda either way.  I don't like citing info from purely partisan sources (freerepublic for the right, obviously someplace like dailykos for the left).  But the vitriol coming out on both sides can be hard to wade through.

One thing is for sure though, this is one of the most emotionally charged races in recent memory.

BTW, has anybody been to Phat Philly's yet?  Went there today for lunch and it wasn't too bad.  A lot of my companions didn't agree with me, but I liked it.

Where is Phat Pilly's located and what type of food do they serve?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I'm not sure, but I think Swake might secretly be shilling for Obama.

Hardly,

I'm no Obamaniac. My support for him is luke warm at best. I didn't vote for him in the primaries. He's not experienced enough and doesn't have enough of a record to know what he would really do. But he's far better than the alternative.

What I am for is the end of the current brand of Republican rule. Early in the primary season I thought McCain (or even Giuliani) might serve that end as well, but McCain has more than proven himself to be one of the same old Rovian Neo-Con Republican crowd who have overstayed their welcome. They aren't conservatives, they are self serving, faux-Christian, intellectually incurious, power hungry pseudo-conservatives for whom the end always justifies the means. This country can't take four more years of that.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Crash Daily

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hoss



One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.

Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.

Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth.  Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.

I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race.  It's a sleazy business.

We can definitely agree on that.  I will say I think Factcheck.org doesn't appear to have an agenda either way.  I don't like citing info from purely partisan sources (freerepublic for the right, obviously someplace like dailykos for the left).  But the vitriol coming out on both sides can be hard to wade through.

One thing is for sure though, this is one of the most emotionally charged races in recent memory.

BTW, has anybody been to Phat Philly's yet?  Went there today for lunch and it wasn't too bad.  A lot of my companions didn't agree with me, but I liked it.

Where is Phat Pilly's located and what type of food do they serve?

11th and Detroit and very funny.  []

They serve Philly Cheese Steak sandwiches.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake
....McCain has more than proven himself to be one of the same old Rovian Neo-Con Republican crowd...

Thanks for proving my point Soros Swake

[guido911]

Who's the liar in this campaign?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama+in+the+mud%3a+So+much+for+honesty&articleId=25fbff30-e785-4106-af08-92f0bbe63968