[GSixZero]

So as we've seen all over the news, Palin continues to repeat the fact that she told congress 'thanks but no thanks' about earmarks for the bridge to nowhere. This has widely been reported as a untrue in the press, as she had nothing to do with saying that the bridge wouldn't get built, and that she kept the money anyway.

The republican's back her up:

John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

As crazy as that statement is, I'll let it be. My question is how do you respond to a party that has no morals about what they're telling the American people? Thoughts?

[0157988944]

You wait until all the right wing nuts flood this thread defending her, then throw up your arms in exasperation. Don't fight it.

Seriously though, the Democrats need to exploit this. I'm sick of Obama being nice. I want to see an attack ad destroying the McCain ads. Pick apart their pros, reveal their lies and tell the american people. Obama has money and he NEEDS to use it.

[GSixZero]

Yes, I agree. The problem is that the Dems craft arguments that need to be deconstructed, and the Republicans just craft simple straight forward lies that people want to believe. In the age of 5 second sound bites, the latter always wins.

[GSixZero]

Actually, thinking about it, I don't blame the Republicans. Clearly they're tactics work, it's just sad that they do. Make's me pretty cynical about people.

[0157988944]

Yeah, I agree with that more. It's sad how much people won't check up on what they are spewed from the TV.

[vmarks]

http://www.retireted.com/category/re...ravina-bridge/

Is a site paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party, which points out that Palin did kill the bridge. I don't need to see any 'greater truth' when the Alaska Democratic Party is spelling out one consistent with what Palin has said.

[aepple]

palin single handed slammed dunk barry and biden... its over. When barry came out he was new and exciting but soon after the glow wore off people are starting to see there's nothing there, he has nothing. He has no fight, the iraq war is over and we won, the surge worked, but he could not admit he was wrong about the surge.

What really amazes me that a guy with such a ivory school education, talks like an idiot, he don't even sound presidential, he fumbles, stumbles, stutters, looses thought, and babbles. The democrats blew it when they didn't let hillary win, and now its over.

[vmarks]

Hi aepple - please stick on topic. This thread is about the bridge to nowhere and whether or not Palin has spoken the truth about that one detail. Your post might be more appropriate in one of the other threads here.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by aepple 

palin single handed slammed dunk barry and biden... its over. When barry came out he was new and exciting but soon after the glow wore off people are starting to see there's nothing there, he has nothing. He has no fight, the iraq war is over and we won, the surge worked, but he could not admit he was wrong about the surge.

What really amazes me that a guy with such a ivory school education, talks like an idiot, he don't even sound presidential, he fumbles, stumbles, stutters, looses thought, and babbles. The democrats blew it when they didn't let hillary win, and now its over.

Who's Barry? What's ivory school education?

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

http://www.retireted.com/category/re...ravina-bridge/

Is a site paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party, which points out that Palin did kill the bridge. I don't need to see any 'greater truth' when the Alaska Democratic Party is spelling out one consistent with what Palin has said.

Yep, that one source overrules all the others, because it's associated with the Alaskan Democratic Party.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

http://www.retireted.com/category/re...ravina-bridge/

Is a site paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party, which points out that Palin did kill the bridge. I don't need to see any 'greater truth' when the Alaska Democratic Party is spelling out one consistent with what Palin has said.

Palin may have officially killed the bridge project, but she's lying when she says she told the congress "thanks but no thanks" on the earmark for that project. It was long gone before she was even Governor.

[GSixZero]

My questions is this, though... Why are there are no consequences for a candidate lying through their teeth? How does one effectively respond to a candidate who is doesn't care about truth or morals? Is even there a way? Does the general electorate even care if candidates tell the truth?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

http://www.retireted.com/category/re...ravina-bridge/

Is a site paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party, which points out that Palin did kill the bridge. I don't need to see any 'greater truth' when the Alaska Democratic Party is spelling out one consistent with what Palin has said.

QFT

The Dems want to see "lies" when it's convenient. Either she killed it or she didn't. By all evidence I can find, she said "no thanks". You can accuse her of not explaining ALL the facts leading up to her saying "no thanks", but that doesn't make her a liar. For instance, has Obama explained that HE voted for the funding for this bridge? No? LIAR?

I'd throw my arms up in exasperation as well if this was the best I could come up with to try and put a negative spin on her pork cutting in Alaska.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

My questions is this, though... Why are there are no consequences for a candidate lying through their teeth?

We were told a long time ago that it didn't matter, as long as they could keep their personal approval numbers up. There was a President who was caught lying through his teeth on a daily basis, and we were told by all of the media and the cultural elite that it was okay. You can't have it both ways.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We were told a long time ago that it didn't matter, as long as they could keep their personal approval numbers up. There was a President who was caught lying through his teeth on a daily basis, and we were told by all of the media and the cultural elite that it was okay. You can't have it both ways.

Are you talking about Reagan and Iran-Contra or Clinton and his sexcapades? Either way, there has been a precedent for several decades now for politicians to claim that if the people like them as leaders then they can do whatever they want. Basically, personality has fully trumped personal responsibility in the political realm: Nothing is too reprehensible as long as you can convince the populace to like you. Heck, we have both a senior US Senator and a First Lady who have killed others due to car accidents. At what point do we reach a limit on what is considered permissible behavior by a political figure?!?

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

QFT

The Dems want to see "lies" when it's convenient. Either she killed it or she didn't. By all evidence I can find, she said "no thanks". You can accuse her of not explaining ALL the facts leading up to her saying "no thanks", but that doesn't make her a liar. For instance, has Obama explained that HE voted for the funding for this bridge? No? LIAR?

...

We were told a long time ago that it didn't matter, as long as they could keep their personal approval numbers up. There was a President who was caught lying through his teeth on a daily basis, and we were told by all of the media and the cultural elite that it was okay. You can't have it both ways.

Excellent point. Why is it ok for any politicians to lie OR give misleading half truths? (Which I personally learned was called lying.) Why don't we hold them to a higher standard? Do you want to get the truth from the people running your country? Do Americans want to be misled into believing things that are either lies or non-truths in exchange for thinking everything is perfect?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Do Americans want to be misled into believing things that are either lies or non-truths?

IMHO, the answer to this question is "Yes". Most Americans want to hear things from their politicians or political candidates that already conform to their pre-conceived notions and/or ideas about a topic. If the politician tells them what they want to hear then they don't have to actually think about the topic beyond their base, emotional response.


(And before anyone throws the accusation of un-American at me, let me just say that I am an American by birth and in fact I *do* hold most of my fellow citizens in very low regard.)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Yep, that one source overrules all the others, because it's associated with the Alaskan Democratic Party.

They would know. /shrug

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

IMHO, the answer to this question is "Yes". Most Americans want to hear things from their politicians or political candidates that already conform to their pre-conceived notions and/or ideas about a topic. If the politician tells them what they want to hear then they don't have to actually think about the topic beyond their base, emotional response.


(And before anyone throws the accusation of un-American at me, let me just say that I am an American by birth and in fact I *do* hold most of my fellow citizens in very low regard.)

I agree with you. How do we change it? How do we get people to be interested and involved in rational debate, instead of partisan mud flinging? I think the majority of people who vote for a president do so by scanning the headlines once a week and perhaps watching a debate. 40% of their choice is prior ideology, 40% is based on soundbites less than 10 seconds, and the remainder goes to some sort of real analysis. How do we change this? Is it possible?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

I agree with you. How do we change it? How do we get people to be interested and involved in rational debate, instead of partisan mud flinging? I think the majority of people who vote for a president do so by scanning the headlines once a week and perhaps watching a debate. 40% of their choice is prior ideology, 40% is based on soundbites less than 10 seconds, and the remainder goes to some sort of real analysis. How do we change this? Is it possible?

We?!?

We don't/can't change anyone but ourselves.

We don't get other "people to be interested and involved in rational debate". Either they want to be involved or they don't; And for the majority of Americans I think they don't want to be involved. Your passion is somewhat admirable but it is mis-placed if you want to change other people. Be the change you want to see happen and leave it at that. (Or be like me and let apathy and disdain for your fellow citizens guide you.)

[GSixZero]

I don't know I want to be as cynical as you, but I don't blame you at all. Cynicism may be the only defense these days.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Excellent point. Why is it ok for any politicians to lie OR give misleading half truths? (Which I personally learned was called lying.)

As to her record in office, there is no "half truth". When she had the opportunity to either move the bridge forward or kill it, she killed it. She had no such opportunity as the mayor of a small town in Alaska.

Why don't we hold them to a higher standard? Do you want to get the truth from the people running your country? Do Americans want to be misled into believing things that are either lies or non-truths in exchange for thinking everything is perfect?

Do we want to believe that 2 politicians who have fairly solid records regarding curbing earmarks and pork, are less candidates of "change" than 2 who have no such record, just because one once supported something when she wasn't in an elected statewide office that she later said "no thanks" to? Why do Obama and Biden get to lie about the totality of their opponents record by stating a single "exception" to what has pretty much been the rule? That would be just as much a "half truth" when comparing their records as anything Palin has said.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As to her record in office, there is no "half truth". When she had the opportunity to either move the bridge forward or kill it, she killed it. She had no such opportunity as the mayor of a small town in Alaska.

Yes, thanks for making this clear, there is no half-truth. Just a full lie. Her quote is "I told congress, thanks but no thanks, for that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska."

Not sure why a mayor would be talking to congress about a bridge nowhere near her town, or why a Governor would need to tell Congress "no thanks" to a project they had nothing to do with at the time.

I really have nothing against Palin. She's a pretty amazing woman. I'm just confused about why politicians can lie and lie and lie without any repercussions. She's just an example of how all politicians get away with it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Yes, thanks for making this clear, there is no half-truth. Just a full lie. Her quote is "I told congress, thanks but no thanks, for that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska."

So...Congress is currently funding the construction of the bridge? Has construction started? When will it be completed. I mean, if she told Congress "thanks, I'll be starting that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska" as you seem to claim, shouldn't it be finished shortly?

Not sure why a mayor would be talking to congress about a bridge nowhere near her town, or why a Governor would need to tell Congress "no thanks" to a project they had nothing to do with at the time.

EXACTLY my point. It wasn't until she was in office that she had the chance to actually act. When it came time for her to decide to either go through with what was already started before she got there, she said "no thanks" and put the funds toward other more worthwhile projects instead of the boondoggle in question. Thanks for helping to illustrate the illogic of your original argument.

I really have nothing against Palin. She's a pretty amazing woman. I'm just confused about why politicians can lie and lie and lie without any repercussions. She's just an example of how all politicians get away with it.

I'm more concerned with average folks who see lies where none really exist, due to political bias. I'm pretty sure false allegations in order to smear people are more concerning than someone not explaining non-relevant "exceptions to the rule" that happened before the matter at hand was relevant.

[ort888]

No, you have it mixed up.

She said "Thanks..." as in thanks for the money for the bridge... "but no thanks", as in, I think I'll still take all the money and spend it on whatever I want.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

No, you have it mixed up.

She said "Thanks..." as in thanks for the money for the bridge... "but no thanks", as in, I think I'll still take all the money and spend it on whatever I want.

No thanks to the bridge, but thanks to the money which will be spent on worthwhile projects which Alaskans have a real need. GOTCHA!

This in addition to cutting earmark requests in half (while Obama requested nearly a billion in earmarks) and McCain requested none puts things in pretty good perspective. It's no wonder Obama wants to focus on what Palin did before she was in office. The stuff she did while there really makes his record look baaaadddd.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As to her record in office, there is no "half truth". When she had the opportunity to either move the bridge forward or kill it, she killed it. She had no such opportunity as the mayor of a small town in Alaska.



Do we want to believe that 2 politicians who have fairly solid records regarding curbing earmarks and pork, are less candidates of "change" than 2 who have no such record, just because one once supported something when she wasn't in an elected statewide office that she later said "no thanks" to? Why do Obama and Biden get to lie about the totality of their opponents record by stating a single "exception" to what has pretty much been the rule? That would be just as much a "half truth" when comparing their records as anything Palin has said.

Sure, there's no half-truth here at all…

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So...Congress is currently funding the construction of the bridge? Has construction started? When will it be completed. I mean, if she told Congress "thanks, I'll be starting that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska" as you seem to claim, shouldn't it be finished shortly?



EXACTLY my point. It wasn't until she was in office that she had the chance to actually act. When it came time for her to decide to either go through with what was already started before she got there, she said "no thanks" and put the funds toward other more worthwhile projects instead of the boondoggle in question. Thanks for helping to illustrate the illogic of your original argument.



I'm more concerned with average folks who see lies where none really exist, due to political bias. I'm pretty sure false allegations in order to smear people are more concerning than someone not explaining non-relevant "exceptions to the rule" that happened before the matter at hand was relevant.

Hrm, you have seemed to either have misunderstood or misconstrued each of my arguments. Please respond again once you read over them one more time.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Hrm, you have seemed to either have misunderstood or misconstrued each of my arguments. Please respond again once you read over them one more time.

Understood perfectly. I think the problem is that your arguments are flawed. You aren't going to get the desired results out of them, because they do not really achieve what you hope they would.

[ort888]

This wouldn't even be a big deal if they didn't keep drumming it up over and over again in her speeches and in their TV commercials.

Even the biggest Republican out there can surely see that she didn't really say "Thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere". At best it's a half-truth... and yet they keep putting it right out there front and center. Over and over.

The McCain camp needs to stop making it the centerpiece issue for Palin, because it makes them look foolish.

[smacintush]

Politicians get away with it because we let them. Most of us are guilty of over judging the guy on the "other team" and letting things pass on our side.

It's not enough to simply disagree with John McCain…we must believe he is a dottering old fool who will destroy this country. Obama isn't just someone with different ideas, he must be a dangerous socialist who is trying to control our lives. George Bush doesn't just do things his way or make mistakes, he's a retarded Nazi. A politician actually said…ON THE RECORD…that "Barack Obama was a community organizer, like Jesus whom our minister spoke about. Pontius Pilate was a governor." That is on the congressional record forever.

It makes it tough because even if there is an honest candidate, he must make the compromise and play the game, or lose. That is what we have now. I don't question the honor of either of Obama or McCain. They seem to me to have been swept into this game and neither of them looks to comfortable or natural with it to me.

The question is, why do YOU (I mean YOU rhetorically here, not pointing fingers) find it unacceptable for one politician to be dishonest, then turn around and make excuses for the one(s) you like?

(Funny that this thread is started about Palin because she has the LEAST number of lies and half-truths in this whole election…simply because of her length of time in office. Come back in 10 years and we'll talk then. I'm sure there will be a pile of them.)

[Kerrigan]

It's true. Mrs. Palin did seek earmarks as Wasilla's mayor. But as governor, she ratcheted down the state's requests for federal dollars, telling the legislature last year Alaska "cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks." Her budget chief directed state agencies to reduce earmark requests to only "the most compelling needs" with "a strong national purpose," explaining to reporters "we really want to skinny it down."

Mr. Obama has again started a debate he can't win. As senator, he has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks, ratcheting up his requests each year he's been in the Senate. If voters dislike earmarks -- and they do -- they may conclude Mrs. Palin cut them, while Mr. Obama grabs for more each year. Quoth Karl Rove in the latest WSJ

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Sure, there's no half-truth here at all…

Umm...I didn't hear her say a word about the bridge in that video. What I have heard is that when it came time to decide whether to go forward with the bridge, she said "no thanks". The record we have is earmarks cut in half due to her demand and the "bridge to nowhere" project being killed.

This, in comparison to nearly a billion dollars in earmarks requested by Obama and Biden and ZERO by McCain.

Yeah..I'd keep talking about what Sarah Palin did BEFORE she got in office too. The stuff after, and McCain's record is a lot tougher to fight and makes Obama and Biden look really bad in comparison. It makes their claims to "change" look really silly in comparison. UNDERSTOOD!

[smacintush]

To be fair about THIS particular statement, she was reading a speech that someone else wrote for her. For all we know her only fault here may be not standing up for herself and refusing to say certain things. (which she may or may not have a problems with) This is perfectly understandable to me considering the world she was thrust into. Not ok, but I get it. (hypothetically speaking)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

This wouldn't even be a big deal if they didn't keep drumming it up over and over again in her speeches and in their TV commercials.

Even the biggest Republican out there can surely see that she didn't really say "Thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere". At best it's a half-truth... and yet they keep putting it right out there front and center. Over and over.

The McCain camp needs to stop making it the centerpiece issue for Palin, because it makes them look foolish.

Your opinion is noted.

If Palin supporting something, then deciding it was a bad idea while cutting earmarks in half and McCain requesting ZERO, while Biden and Obama where requesting a billion dollars worth makes them look "foolish" - then I'm sure they'll look foolish all the way to the White House.

[tie]

Plenty of half truths, stupendousman. I can't see how you could have missed them. Palin was a big supporter of the bridge. Yes, she eventually killed it. But that doesn't mean she didn't support it any more than McCain's voting for it meant that he supported it. She only killed it because the federal government wouldn't give her enough money to finish it. And she kept the money for other pork-barrel projects.

That's the Rest of the Story. It should really be better reported in the media. But anyway, now you know.

[Kerrigan]

Like I posted above, you cannot win this argument. Palin halved earmarks, Obama increases them every year and has taken nearly a billion dollars worth.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Like I posted above, you cannot win this argument. Palin halved earmarks, Obama increases them every year and has taken nearly a billion dollars worth.

Well, when Obama makes a commercial that says he decreased earmarks, get back to me.

Like I said earlier, nothing about this really bothers me all that much... besides the fact that the McCain campaign is putting out commercials that feature a blatant half-truth about something so concrete. It's insulting.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Umm...I didn't hear her say a word about the bridge in that video. What I have heard is that when it came time to decide whether to go forward with the bridge, she said "no thanks". The record we have is earmarks cut in half due to her demand and the "bridge to nowhere" project being killed.

Then you must have REALLY selective hearing.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Bridges to Nowhere
See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge
Two proposed Alaskan bridges have been derided as symbols of pork barrel spending: the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge. The nickname "Bridge to Nowhere" has been applied to both.[78][dubious – discuss] In 1995,[citation needed] the U.S. Congress earmarked $454.4 million to build the two bridges, but later reversed itself under strong criticism, instead giving the money to Alaska for general transportation.[79][78][80] The following year, Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for using the insulting term "Bridge to Nowhere."[81][82][83]

In September 2007, Governor Palin canceled the Gravina Island Bridge, attributing the decision to Congress.[84] Palin continued to support funding the Knik Arm Bridge.[85][82] Construction also continued on a $25 million access road on Gravina Island which now leads only to an empty beach; state officials reasoned that if the $25 million had not been spent, it would have to be returned to the federal government.[82]
In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[86][87] McCain-Palin television advertisements also claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[88] Given Palin's previous support for the Bridge, these claims have been described as misleading by The Wall Street Journal,[89] the Associated Press,[90] The New York Times,[91] Newsweek,[92] and The Washington Post.[93]

You are free to check out the cited sources yourself.

[- - e r i k - -]

I don't really mind so much the flip-flopping on this issue myself (people are allowed to change their mind), but the fact that it is touted as her "maverickness" is downright hilarious given the circumstances.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I don't really mind so much the flip-flopping on this issue myself (people are allowed to change their mind), but the fact that it is touted as her "maverickness" is downright hilarious given the circumstances.

I thought they called it maverickocity?

[- - e r i k - -]

Maverickulous!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Plenty of half truths, stupendousman. I can't see how you could have missed them. Palin was a big supporter of the bridge.

At one time, she supported all "infastructure" projects that Alaska's Congressional representatives where working on, and said she didn't want to stand in their way. When it came time to either build the bridge or move on, she said "no thanks" as she claims.

Obama was against offshore drilling at one time. If Obama now says "I support offshore drilling" is he a "liar" because he doesn't mention that for years he was against it and only after it become politically important to his campaign did he change his mind and support it?

When you start playing the "he lied" game in order to get a "gotcha" in, you end up doing nothing but make yourself look bad. Really, it's silly and petty. Given Palin's over-all record, you're getting desperate.

Yes, she eventually killed it.

EXACTLY as she claims. Thanks.

But that doesn't mean she didn't support it any more than McCain's voting for it meant that he supported it. She only killed it because the federal government wouldn't give her enough money to finish it. And she kept the money for other pork-barrel projects.

What unnecessary projects did the funds go towards?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Then you must have REALLY selective hearing.]

You are free to check out the cited sources yourself.

You are free to quote from the video link you posted anywhere that Palin said anything about the bridge in question. Quoting from a second source doesn't make my hearing bad.

Besides, if lying about your record is bad, then maybe it's Obama you should be schooling:
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBl...ma_will_regret

Let’s start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he’s ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was “yes.” He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced — this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama’s opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

And there are Mr. Obama’s associations. Let’s start with the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Obama expressed shock that Rev. Wright would say things like “God damn America” and say the American government created AIDS to commit genocide against black people. Yet he belonged to that church for 20 years. He was married by Rev. Wright, had his children baptized by him, and even took his book title from one of the good reverend’s sermons.

When Rev. Wright’s outrageous diatribes surfaced, Mr. Obama refused to renounce him. Then when Rev. Wright repeated the same statements at the National Press Club, and Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination, suddenly he denounced him. Why? He said Rev. Wright’s statements in D.C. were unlike anything he had heard before and he was shocked. But those statements had been in the news for months. Are we to believe that Mr. Obama had not read or heard any of the news for weeks? Or that he never heard anything similar in more than 20-years of listening to Rev. Wright’s sermons? Hmm.

...at that's just the tip of the iceberg. Just this month he claimed in regards to the surge that that despite knowing his opponent fought for the surge and claimed it was what was needed to create peace in Iraq, Obama said no one had any idea the surge would work when he had to admit he was wrong about it. Lie?

Really, if people want to fault Palin because when she told the truth, she didn't add additional information that would serve to not make her opponents look so bad, then maybe they should start looking at their own guy who has outright lied about his record (not just 'half truths') in order to save face.

We can do that all day, but Obama said this race was going to be about "the issues". If the issue is federal earmarks, then McCain and Palin's record clearly outshines that of Obama and Biden. I"m thinking the reason this is being made a big deal is because "the issues" don't really fall in Obama's favor regarding this subject and many others. Cutting spending? Whoops. The war? Whoops. The economy? Obama already admitted that his plan could very well be bad for fragile economy - whoops. The problem is that McCain and Palin are talking about the issues, and Obama is getting his ass kicked on them. He's got to find a diversion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then another copy surfaced — this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure

Just to point out, if you look at his answers WRT handguns on that questionnaire, it's pretty obvious if you know anything about guns that he doesn't know anything about guns.

One of the questions he answered yes to was along the lines of "would you support legislation that restricted firearms", the other question he answered yes to was "would you support a ban on all semi-automatic weapons".

Why even bother to answer the first question when the second answer places you as wanting to ban all firearms excepting bolt/lever action rifles and pump shotguns?

Though this doesn't forgive his later equivocation, not really understanding the technical term underlying the question is totally par for the course for an anti-gun type. I would surmise he thought the question was referring to automatic weapons.


Edit: I say "questions he answered" which gives the impression there was more than one question. There was only one question, but it had multiple answers to pick from. "Ban all semi-autos" was at one end and "support restrictions" was in the middle. This is further evidence of his confusion to me because it's obviously set up as a "pick-one" kind of question, with choices that covered the spectrum. He picked two.