NPR's Liasson falsely claimed distortion-laden McCain ad "catalogued all of the false or sexist or awful things" Dems have said about Palin
SUMMARY: On NPR's Morning Edition, Mara Liasson asserted that a new McCain campaign ad "catalogued all of the false or sexist or awful things that Democrats and Obama supporters have said about [Gov.] Sarah Palin." In fact, the ad did not "catalogue[]" any "false" statements the Obama campaign or other Democrats have made about Palin and, as FactCheck.org noted, the ad "distorts" each of the three Obama campaign statements it uses "to make the case" that Sen. Barack Obama is "being 'disrespectful' of Palin."
On the September 12 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, national political correspondent Mara Liasson asserted: "[T]oday, the McCain campaign just released an ad called, 'Disrespectful,' where it catalogued all of the false or sexist or awful things that Democrats and Obama supporters have said about [Gov.] Sarah Palin." In fact, the McCain campaign ad to which Liasson referred did not "catalogue[]" any "false" statements the Obama campaign or other Democrats have made about Palin. Moreover, contrary to Liasson's assertion that the ad documents "sexist" and "awful things" that have been said about Palin, it "distorts" each of the three Obama campaign statements it uses "to make the case," as FactCheck.org has noted.
From FactCheck.org's September 11 article:
The ad says Obama and [Sen. Joe] Biden "lashed out at Sarah Palin. Dismissed her as 'good looking.' "
That's misleading. The reference is to a report of Biden joking that one of the differences between Palin and him is that "she's good looking." But the report cited in the ad doesn't characterize Biden's remarks as dismissive. Instead, ABC News' Jake Tapper and Matt Jaffe describe a moment when Biden "ham[s] it up" for the crowd, with one woman telling Biden that he's "gorgeous." The Democratic candidate then says he'd like to end "on a serious note."
[...]
Our ears don't hear Biden's "good looking" comment as dismissive. To the contrary, it's clearly a self-deprecating remark made in joking about himself and his looks. And by the way, the ad shows a picture of Obama next to the "good looking" quote, but it was Biden, not Obama, who said that.
[...]
The ad continues to imply sexism by claiming that "they said she was doing 'what she was told.' " Presumably "they" are the Democrats. But no one said anything close to that. Rather, the McCain ad took a fragment of an actual statement by an Obama adviser and carefully added language to alter the meaning.
The ad cites a Sept. 4 report from Ben Smith's blog at Politico.com in which he interviewed Obama adviser David Axelrod about Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention.
The full quote reads:
Axelrod, quoted by Politico, Sept. 4: "She tried to attack Obama by saying he had no significant legislative accomplishments -- maybe that's what she was told -- but she should talk to Sen. Lugar, talk to Sen. Coburn, talk to people across the aisle in Illinois where he passed dozens of major laws to expand health care reform welfare, reduce taxes on working families."
Axelrod's statement, as reported, was about information that Palin was given: "maybe that's what she was told." The McCain-Palin campaign manipulated the phrase to make it sound as though he was alleging that Palin took orders: "doing what she was told."
The rest of the interview actually included some praise from Axelrod for Palin. For instance, he said she is a "skilled politician."
And, again, the quote used in the ad wasn't said by Obama, either - though his photo appears next to it.
[...]
The ad wraps up by saying Obama and Biden "desperately called Sarah Palin a liar." And it adds, "How disrespectful."
The reference is to an ad the Obama-Biden campaign released in which it criticizes Palin for saying she was against the infamous Bridge to Nowhere when she had previously been for it. (We called into question Palin's comments on the bridge last week.) The Obama ad says, "Politicians lying about their records. You don't call that maverick, you call it more of the same." It then quotes an item from the liberal magazine The New Republic, which called the claim that Palin stopped the pork-barrel bridge project "a naked lie."
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has documented, Palin has put forth outright falsehoods about her purported opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" project.
Later in the Morning Edition broadcast, Liasson identified several "examples" of, in host Renée Montagne's words, "John McCain's once-famous 'Straight Talk Express' taking a detour," but Liasson did not return to discussing McCain's "Disrespectful" ad. After mentioning the "examples," Liasson stated: "But, you know, this might not be straight talk, but just like those celebrity ads with Paris Hilton that the McCain campaign ran earlier, they -- it seems to work, and I think winning is important whether you win pretty or win ugly."
From the September 12 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:
MONTAGNE: The excitement about Sarah Palin, her appeal to conservatives, her interview last night with ABC News, and the shifting polls are the big campaign stories these days. Our political brain trust is standing by to provide some analysis: NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson and political editor Ken Rudin. Good morning to both of you.
RUDIN: Good morning, Renée.
LIASSON: Good morning, Renée.
MONTAGNE: Now, Mara, if I may start with you, conventional wisdom has it that people don't vote on running mates, they vote for the top of the ticket, but from what we've just heard from [correspondent] Don [Gonyea], and from other stories, it looks like Sarah Palin may just well turn that on its head.
LIASSON: She may be the exception that proves the rule, at least for now. She is energizing the base, as you just heard. She's boosted John McCain's support with white women. She's energized him -- he hasn't been apart from her very much for the whole week, and the campaign says they may continue to campaign together. That's why they're getting those big crowds; he wouldn't get them by himself.
And the other effect she's had is to flummox the famously unflappable Obama campaign, who has been unsure of how to deal with her and has tried out a whole bunch of different approaches. Some of them have been more successful than others, and as a matter of fact, today, the McCain campaign just released an ad called, "Disrespectful," where it catalogued all of the false or sexist or awful things that Democrats and Obama supporters have said about Sarah Palin.
MONTAGNE: Ken, let's talk about the polls. How much of McCain's better numbers are thanks to Palin?
[...]
MONTAGNE: And sticking with you, Mara, there's been talk about John McCain's once-famous "Straight Talk Express" taking a detour. Palin's claims to oppose the bridge -- "Bridge," I'm sorry, "to Nowhere" when the facts indicate she initially supported it. Can you give us some other examples?
LIASSON: Well, there's a lot of examples. Obviously, the "Bridge to Nowhere" is a big one. She was for it, before she was against it, and she was against it when it really didn't matter anymore. The McCain campaign is running an ad about attacking Barack Obama's education record, saying that he was for comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. Fact-check features in newspapers have called that dishonest and deceptive.
And then, of course, there's the charge that when he said, "putting lipstick on a pig," he was referring to Sarah Palin, which seems to not to be supported by the evidence. But, you know, this might not be straight talk, but just like those celebrity ads with Paris Hilton that the McCain campaign ran earlier, they -- it seems to work, and I think winning is important whether you win pretty or win ugly, and that seems to be the strategy that the McCain campaign is following.
It's funny that MM is citing FactCheck.org. Even though it is a left-leaning organization, they have found many more egregious falsehoods, lies, lies, lies, and out-of-context remarks in Obama's ads! LOL!
You can claim anything is left-leaning. Backing it up is another matter.
Even if it's true, MMfA isn't supposed to cite them because of it? That makes no sense at all. If they cited a source that noted an overwhelming amount of falsehoods from McCain, you'd dismiss them as biased.
http://www.factcheck.org/
First off, factcheck.org is not left-leaning. There's much more evidence that they leaned right, when they leaned, in the 2004 election. This election cycle they've shown less bias.
Secondly, if one checks out the link to the website, they'd see that they have catalogued many more lies from McCain than from Obama. They've catalogued many more distortions from McCain's campaign than from Obama's campaign. There have been some minor issues raised with Obama's ads and his campaign's statements - that's it.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMtvzhUJmkDwVPsjJ0vhp-MDl1-gD9359Q2O0
Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week.
To compare Obama and McCain's campaigns as equally guilty of offensive behavior is unpatriotic to the extreme! How can one lie about something so important as who runs our nation?
Shoes wrote:
>>Even though it is a left-leaning organization
Oh really? And your proof of that is? And why doesn't it bother you that McCain is lying to you? Do you think lies are okay?
Shoes thinks its left leaning because it doesn't confirm everyone of his bias' about the left wing.
To Shoes and other lying right wing Republicans, anyone who busts Republicans for their lies have a "liberal bias".
Anyone who rubber stamps a Republican's lie without comment is allegedly "fair and balanced".
I think factcheck.org actually does a good job of staying pretty impartial. And while they have called Sen. Obama out on several of his inaccurate statements, they have stated that Sen. McCain is ‘engaging in a pattern of deceit’.
Another fact check website, www.politifact.com, rates statement made by candidates from true to ‘pants on fire’ (outrageous lies). Based on 113 statements, from each candidate, Sen. Obama’s statements were outright true 34% of the time, compared to only 22% for Sen. McCain. Sen. Obama’s statements were outright false 15% of the time, compared to 24% for Sen. McCain. And Sen. McCain was caught with 6 ‘pants on fire’ statements, as opposed to 0 (zero) from Sen. Obama.
Now, it’s possible that the media is biased and tries to find more dirt on Sen. McCain then they do on Sen. Obama. However, even today on the View, Sen McCain defended two of his recent ads that have been labeled as false by the media, fact check sites and even GOP sluggers like Bill O’Reilly and Mike Huckabee (both stated that there was no way Sen. Obama was referring to Gov. Palin). Of the ad that claims Sen. Obama called Gov. Palin a pig and the sex-ed ad, Sen. McCain stated that ‘actually, they are not lies’. So if independent organizations find that Sen. McCain lies more frequently and engages in a ‘pattern of deceit’ and when directly confronted with that accusation, Sen. McCain simply states that he still believes he’s telling the truth, maybe the problem isn’t the media. Maybe the problem is Sen. McCain.
Wow. Damning, and unflagging truthful. Watch it. Bush has a cell with your name on it (or in it).
Randy
If they're so left leaning, then why are their pointing out Obama's fallacies as well? You really are a muppet, and incapable of actually reading facts from things aren't you?
Here, why don't you read their mission statement:
http://www.factcheck.org/about/
I’m less concerned with who has a longer catalog of accusations than I am with MMFA’s assertion that Liasson falsely claimed anything.
Liasson is saying McCain asserts BLAH BLAH BLAH.
It is not appropriate for Liasson to challenge and clarify these assertions in this particular context. Liasson is not saying they are true or untrue, Liasson is only saying what McCain is saying.
This is Typical MMFA style reporting.
Max wrote:
>> It is not appropriate for Liasson to challenge and clarify these assertions in this particular context.
Why?
"And the other effect she's had is to flummox the famously unflappable Obama campaign, who has been unsure of how to deal with her and has tried out a whole bunch of different approaches. Some of them have been more successful than others, and as a matter of fact, today, the McCain campaign just released an ad called, "Disrespectful," where it catalogued all of the false or sexist or awful things that Democrats and Obama supporters have said about Sarah Palin."
In other words, Obama has been unsuccessful at attacking Palin because all of the false/sexist/awful things he's said have been highlighted. If the ad itself is full of false statements, then her comment here is misinformation.
If McCain says “Obama is the Messiah”, Liasson can say “McCain claims Obama is the Messiah” without having to prove or disapprove whether or not Obama is actually the Messiah.
It’s kind of like argument against the Fairness Doctrine.
If Clear Channel had to give equal time (however boring) to each of Rush Limbaugh’s shows, Clear Channel would begin loosing money, and just say f’it, it’s not worth running the Rush Limbaugh show any more.
This is why the liberal’s think the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea, because it is a sneaky way to squelch conservative views under the guise of ‘fairness’.
This is why the liberal’s think the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea...
If the right-wing noise machine wasn't a pack of liars, then this whole Fairness Doctrine nonsense wouldn't even come up.
It's about telling the truth. But you, Max, prefer being lied to. Kind of sad to go through life believing only lies.
That is a different argument than claiming she *must* do this. MMFA asserts she *must* verify the validity of all claims made
I must have missed that part.
God forbid they don't get to attend any more press conferences where people like Jeff Gannon get to ask the questions.
The difference is that she is making a judgment on the ad. She's saying that Obama's efforts aren't working because they've been exposed as false and sexist.
That relies on the honesty of the ad. Otherwise, nothing anyone ever did could work because all their opponents would have to do is to release a dishonest ad in response.
"Some of McCain's efforts criticizing Obama have been more effective than others. As a matter of fact, today Obama released an ad claiming that he has in fact been in the U.S. Senate for 22 years." I guess it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to note that the ad was dishonest, huh?
By that logic, why bother with issues or facts? Let's just make up fanciful claims with no basis in fact.
I'm old enough to recall the Soviets were skilled a this. It was called disinformation (English spelling of course).
Once again, the Republicans have imported Soviet and communist methods to America. We've had torture, propaganda and cronyism, now it's disinformation.
Dump McCain. Palin for President!
Max Dharma makes this outrageous pro-Republican statement to defend his sister right wing Republican hate hag, Republican Hate Hag Liar Mara Liasson:
"It is not appropriate for Liasson to challenge and clarify these assertions in this particular context. Liasson is not saying they are true or untrue, Liasson is only saying what McCain is saying."
Tell me when it allegedly became "inappropriate" to call McCain a liar, and when it allegedly became "inappropriate" to challenge Liar McCain's outright lies, and why the partisan Republican hate Hag Liar Mara Liasson is supposed to rubber stamp Liar McCain's lies as the truth.
Rubber stamping outright lies from Liar McCain or any other politician who lies is not polite nor professional, it's both partisan and cowardly.
So let me get this straight.
If you call someone a liar, and you have demonstrated, without a doubt, that said person is a liar (Palin, and many of her comments are outright falsehoods and lies), then you're being disrespectful? Umm, not to much really.
Than again, how dare Obama and "some" democrats attack a former POW, and a Mom of 5?
I suppose it would be disrespectful of me to write something like "Hey, lookie here, Senator McCain either lied or said something really really foolish while he was on The View today:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/to-the-ladies-o.html
I don't think McCain is an idiot, so I'll give his the benefit of the doubt and assert that he simply told a lie."
So I won't.
Funniest entry I've heard so far in the suddenly-feminist-and-outraged-wingnut sweepstakes was this morning-- Laura Ingraham, in response to Harry Reid calling Palin's speech "shrill";
"At least she's not boring!"
Yes, she is. Boring and shrill.
I didn't catch much of the forum last night , but I heard a clip played on a righty am radio show this morning, and I think it was trying to support Palin. Anybody hear her answer to the question about her "Mission from God" Iraq statement? She tried to compare it to an Abe Lincoln statement, but seemed oblivious that she was saying the exact opposite of what Abe's message was, regarding knowing God's will.She's really coming off as more of a dimwit every day.
Col wrote:
>>Anybody hear her answer to the question about her "Mission from God" Iraq statement?
Unfortunately, that quote is out of context. She may have meant that Iraq was a war demanded by God, or she might have meant that God was just protecting the soldiers. See the dailyhowler.com for the full quote.
Col wrote:
>>Now I have to wonder how Gibson chose that quote out of many others I've heard from her, in proper context, that would have served his purpose better.
Because our frickin media is a joke. When the Repubs lie through their teeth, the media should report the lies thoroughly and accurately. By being so sloppy, they allow the right to come back and give credence to their mantra "liberal media." Take the bridge to nowhere claim. In actuality, Palin was not for it and then only against it when it became unpopular. She was for it when it was unpopular--that's why it was even an issue in the governor's race. And then when she pulled the plug, she was still for it. The true facts on her stance are even more damning.
But don't think our millionaire press corps will ever get anything right.
She can try to weasel out from under the God's will thing about Iraq, but at the same service she most definitely said that the gas pipeline was the will of the big guy. Here's the quote.
"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."
"Funniest entry I've heard so far in the suddenly-feminist-and-outraged-wingnut sweepstakes was this morning-- Laura Ingraham, in response to Harry Reid calling Palin's speech "shrill";
"At least she's not boring!"
Yes, she is. Boring and shrill."
Which one, Hate Hag Liar Sarah Palin or Hate Hag Liar Laura Ingraham?
Then again, BOTH of these lying Republican hate hags are shrill. Among other negative things.
re: "Stupidity of the American People"
Well, by definition, half of the American people have IQs under 100; and one of the great difficulties for Democrats is addressing that part of the population. (In recent times the Republicans have been comparatively good at this. There simply is no competent equivalent to Karl Rove the Democratic ranks.) This isn't a low blow at the Republicans -- part of any election campaign involves addressing this portion of the population (they're Americans too, after all.) You have to (1) keep it simple, using basic slogans and hammering them home (but: these can be slogans that encapsulate genuine truths) (2) appeal to basic emotional values (but: there is always a internally contradictory set of "hot buttons" here, and it is open to the campaign to push those which are actually defensible) (3) deal with the distraction problem; find a way of getting the addressees to focus on the message. One way -- not the only way, to be sure -- is to be entertaining!
I think figuring out how this election will go really comes down to this: if the Democrats succeed in the above project, they will win (perhaps win big.) If not. . . .
I'd be very interested in getting some feedback on these thoughts.
Intelligence does have a part in who you vote for. I'm not sure its the major part of that desicion.
Finding trustworthy information is not easy if the main stream media is your primary source. And some people do consider Jeff Christy a trustworthy source of information.
The amount of information needed to make a good choice is not small either.
This leaves a large population voting more from an emotional basis than an informational basis.
From this basis an emotional connect with the voters is very important for a candidate. Obama's tallents here are pretty good. Thats where the Missiah comments are coming from. A classic Rove thought, make a strength a weakness.
Currently there are 11 million more registered democrats than republicans. The most important thing to me would be encouraging voting. Lotta people agree. Disenfranchising these voters is another returning theme.
Making a prediction using voter intelligence as a major factor is likely to fail. At least in the current media/information situation, and one of our political parties has no use for an intelligent population anyway.
Dear Eweston,
"Making a prediction using voter intelligence as a major factor is likely to fail."
Sure. You don't have to be stupid or irrational to vote Republican. All you need is an appropriate motive -- like e.g. being rich, or really believing that the world is out to get us.
My thought was more that, as close as presidential elections tend to be, whoever wins is going to need a lot of "2-digit" votes to do it. While the Democratic advantage in registrations speaks for success (and yes, actually getting that vote out is ENORMOUSLY important!) the Democrats still need far more technical competence in addressing the intellectually challenged.
While I'm on this particular rant, two further thoughts:
You're right about the information problem(s). But -- taking the Palin phenomenon as an example -- it's seems clear that having the information isn't sufficient. The ability of some parts of the population to ignore information is remarkable. In the Palin case, the Republican machine had succeeded in convincing in advance large parts of the population that the (nasty leftist) press would soon attack Palin, would send dirt-diggers to Alaska (etc.). Thus, those portions of the population to whom Palin had been successfully sold were already immunized again any negative information that might come out. Indeed, that information serves to strengthen the "three-wise-monkeys" effect, since "one of us" is now under attack from "them". Truth of the information? Completely irrelevant. The glimmer of hope here is that -- if the Republicans overdo it -- even a true moron will gradually notice what is being done; and the two-digit portions of our population are still by no means morons. . .
I suggested that entertainment-value can play a major role in the attention/focus factor, but this applies only at a time of comparative calm. Much more powerful (and dangerous) are (a) fear, and (b) jingoism ("we-they"ism). The Obama campaign cannot -- by its very nature -- appeal to these. But the very rejection of this sleazy sort of appeal can in turn be packaged positively as a politics-of-hope-and-of-sleeves-rolled-up-problem-solving. And the campaign can -- legitimately -- build on the fear of the consequences of a different approach. The question is how to do this really effectively.
The whole problem with the media coverage of presidential races can be found in this statement by Liasson:
"But, you know, this might not be straight talk, but just like those celebrity ads with Paris Hilton that the McCain campaign ran earlier, they -- it seems to work, and I think winning is important whether you win pretty or win ugly."
You see, to the media doesn't care if a politician lies (except when Gore *allegedly* lied). To them, it is sport, and if the other side can win by dishonesty, they think its fun. Read Liasson's line again and try to wrap your head around it. Yes, this is what the press really believes: if a poll can win by lying good for him!
Governor wrote:
>>They do see it as sport.
Except even in sports the media would show more of a sense of fairness. If one boxes beat the crap out of a judge, I doubt sports' commentators would say "it seems to work, and I think winning is important whether you win pretty or win ugly."
"You see, to the media doesn't care if a politician lies (except when Gore *allegedly* lied)."
The time the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media doen't care only when Republican politicians lie. They only care when Demcrats and/or anyone else dares to hold Republicans accountable for their lies.
Then the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media begins to attack those people and groups who seek to make these lying Republicans pay for their lies by claiming those people and groups are "disrespectful" and/or "mean" and/or "hateful".
Shoes89: It's funny that MM is citing FactCheck.org. Even though it is a left-leaning organization, they have found many more egregious falsehoods, lies, lies, lies, and out-of-context remarks in Obama's ads! LOL!
You're unknowlingly complimenting liberals by claiming (falsely) that a reliable organization like factcheck.org is a left-leaning site. Their articles are extremely accurate, thoroughly well-researched, objective. and based on facts. Thanks! But unfortunately, they are nonpartisan site, per their mission statement:
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
While factcheck.org has cataloged the misleads and falsehoods of both candidates, it's actually clear from looking at their archives that McCain is far more likely to engage in these deceptive tactics. Here's just a few only dating back to July:
Belittling Palin?
McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
Off Base on Sex Ed
FactChecking McCain
Maverick Misleads
A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern
Context Included: Obama on Iran
Rezko Reality
More Tax Deceptions
Wind Power Puffery
Obama's Celebrity Cred
Snubbing Wounded Troops?
McCain Links Castro With Obama
A Full Tank of Nonsense
The Truth on Troop Support?
McCain's Small-Business Bunk
A False Accusation About Energy
The $32,000 Question
Errors en Español
FactCheck Archive
Shoes, maybe this is the reason you label them left-leaning: they don't have the same volume of articles catching Obama in a fib as they do McCain? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that has nothing to do with bias. It just means the McCain camp is more willing to lie and distort reality. Being fair and balanced doesn't require one to make up or cover false stories about Obama to "even things out". That's only how it work in the MSM...
Absolutely right on ALL counts, NIceGuyEddie. BOTH McCain and Palin have lied about, and continue to lie about everything.
And their allie in the corporate conservative news media continue to coddle and protect these 2 Republican liars.
I just sent Lie-asson and Mongagne an e-mail...
National Putrid Radio has hit rock bottom.
–Sarah Palin, on complaints from Hillary Clinton's campaign about sexist coverage, Spring 2008
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm
Nice one Worrier...
You think Liasson or Montagne would bring that up?
If Liar McCain and Liar Palin don't like being called liars, then both of them should stop lying.
If the Liar McCain-Liar Palin supporters don't like their candidates being called iars, then they should tell their candidates to stop lying, and the McCain-Palin supporters/voters should also stop lying.
Dump McCain while we still have a chance.
PALIN FOR SOCCER MOM VAN DRIVER!!!
Go home Sarah, your children need you! God wants you to be at home.
Aren't you the one who had the Elvis sighting the other day?
One good thing will come of this: till the end of time, the GOD shall never disparage a woman for being a woman. Forever.
Start holding your breath, ladies. It'll be the last you take.
Randy
Did I say GOD? I meant GOP. Freudian slips are a bit**.
Randy
mikeeatsanything,
Hey, have your heard about the ad from Obama mocking McCain's lack of knowledge regarding the internet? Turns out McCain has been savvy with regard to the internet since 2000. The reason he doesn't do email? He can't because of his POW injuries.
Nice and sensitive Barry, you approved of attacking a man who cannot salute the flag or use a keyboard because of injuries he received while serving in Vietnam. That looks very presidential for sure!
http://www.slate.com/id/74812/
And as far as Bide attacking, he's already proving to be a great assest to the team.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM537BgCsMg
Keep getting the message of the left out there and watch Americans run away!
What the hell are you babbling about? The ad stated:
"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail..."
And here's McCain from July:
"I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need."
They didn't say he wasn't aware of the internet. He said himself he wasn't computer literate and didn't know how to get online.
As for the POW excuse, give me a break. Does he have carpal tunnel syndrome because the VC set him in front of an Underwood for 16 hours a day? He seems to be able to use a Blackberry pretty well, he doesn't have any problem typing on those. Of course McCain can't raise his arms very high because of his torture. But with a laptop you don't have to raise your arms up very high, because you can set it...on...your...lap. Hence the name "laptop".
McCain made an admission he's regretting, and he's trying to lie his way out of it.
braburner,
I just wanted to point out the blunder of mocking him about this.
If he's using a blackberry, I guess he probably uses it for email and such. His comments in July may have been self-depricating in nature but back in 2000 and until about 2 years ago, it was just the keyboard. If you have ever had an injury, beyond CT, in the upper arm and shoulders, it is very difficult to align your hands properly to type with any dexterity or speed.
Glad to have cleared up the mess for you.
*Yawn*
That all ya got, ProudCon? Tnanks as usual for the laughs ... :)
Kinda funny to see you whining about unfair attacks when your side has run one of the sleaziest campaigns in history. Often, borderline racist.
See those "Obama Waffles" for sale at the so-called "Values Voter" conference this weekend?? Nice bunch there ... a group of folks who are just dying to show their true colors and use the "N" word in public, like they do in private ...
bandgeekdavey,
Didn't see that 'waffling' thing but your racist sentiments are yours and not from conservatives.
You ask if that is all I got, have you seen any of the threads here? The leftists and their candidate need to be talked down off of the ledge. Media Matters (for very little) will soon be called Voter Matters for America because the leftists are angry that individual voters are not bright enough to grasp how wise leftism is. Funny, why Americans repudiate leftism has nothing to do with them, nothing to do with how the left gets its message out but it is with the message of marxism that American voters run away.
So, that's all I got, but apparently that's exactly what America has needed.
That's brilliant stuff. You don't know what he's talking about, but any racism must just be in his head. I guess there are no racist Republicans.
So taking McCain at his word is a huge political mistake, but racist imagery isn't. Funny how that works.
Was he lying with his self-deprecating remarks? Because they certainly suggest that he's physically able to use a computer. Otherwise there's no purpose in him learning at all, since he'd always need someone else to get on there for him anyway. And personally, I rest the heels of my hands on the computer, as I think many people do. Alignment is not a problem if you do that.
What I also notice is that he can hold a phone up to his ear. Now, if you can raise your arm that high, you can straighten your fingers out and put them up to your head. You might not get your elbow as far out as you'd like, but it would still be a salute. So is it that he can't salute the flag, or is it that he just doesn't feel like it? Remember, this is a guy who didn't wear a flag pin on 9/11, while that Obama guy did.
I don't really believe that he doesn't want to, it just seems like your type of argument. I'm just not buying that he's unable to do these things. His mobility in his shoulder may be limited, but he's not an invalid or anything.
Mara Liasson says, "I think winning is important whether you win pretty or win ugly, and that seems to be the strategy that the McCain campaign is following."
Most voters under the age of 40 have never heard of Lee Atwater, the architect of modern political dirty tricks. He was the original Darth Vader of the Republican Party. Karl Rove, who everybody knows, gets most of the credit for this style of politics that attacks the character of opponents and attempts to destroy their reputations and careers. Rovian Politics means to: ridicule, personalize, polarize, goad, turn strengths into negatives, exploit vulnerabilities, lie, distort, and deny. It is rumored that Karl Rove is now advising John McCain. Steve Schmidt, McCain’s top campaign adviser, was Karl Rove’s protégé. What does this say about John McCain? And, what does this say about Mara Liasson who appears to condone the Rovian tactics employed by McCain?
Lee Atwater died in 1991 of a brain tumor at the age of 40 years old. Shortly before his death he had an epiphany and converted to Catholicism. He issued public apologies and sought the personal forgiveness from political opponents who were the casualties of his attacks, ridicule, lies, and false rumors. He said, “my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."
I’m not expecting an epiphany from anyone else anytime soon, but I am very proud of Barack Obama for already understanding the “nature of humanity” and for not engaging in the style of politics that Lee Atwater only came to reject on his death bed.