Time to connect the dots
F29th links to a a piece in the Hornell Evening Tribune which points out that Kuhl has really only agreed to one debate with Eric Massa. The forum in Elmira is not a debate.
You may recall that Kuhl and Massa debated three times in 2006. You may also have noticed that the Kuhl campaign has taken to telling outright lies in its direct mail pieces, something they didn’t do last cycle.
This is hardly isolated among Republicans in this election cycle. The McCain campaign’s efforts to shield Sarah Palin from the press is unprecedented in the annals of modern American presidential campaigns. And the series of lies from the McCain campaign — about Palin’s attitude towards earmarks, about the Bridge to Nowhere, about Obama’s support or a program to protect children from predators — is changing the landscape of American politics, and not in a good way. Here’s Tom Edsall, probably America’s most respected political reporters, on that:
The McCain campaign, in running TV ads which defy prior political standards, is gambling that the traditional rules governing what is permissible in presidential contests — as defined by the mainstream media — can safely be discarded this year.
The normally cautious and even-handed Associated Press on Thursday declared, “Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain’s skirting of facts has stood out this week.” The controversies have surrounded McCain television commercials and stump speeches asserting that Barack Obama “supports” comprehensive sex education in kindergarten, that Obama called Sarah Palin a “pig in lipstick,” and that Palin stood firmly against the “bridge to nowhere” — despite videotape evidence that the Alaskan governor provided support for the earmark before she opposed it.
[....]
If, however, the current Republican strong-arm approach to this year’s contest proves effective, not only will Democratic expectations be crushed, but the triumph of image over substance, of playing to bias, and of coded rhetoric will mark a significant advance of the dominance in politics of advertising “ethics.”
[....]
The McCain campaign, however, is banking on the notion that the steady decline in trust in the media has reached the point of no return, that the press and television can no longer play the role of umpire or national arbiter of what is accurate and what is untrue, what is fair game and what is out of bounds.
I speak with people who support McCain, defend his tactics, and also say they support a strong free press. Those people are living a lie, my friends.
If Republicans are able to make an end run around the media, the truth, and previously accepted standards of political behavior, it may mark the death of the press in America and the end of our functional democracy.
Related posts:
Don’t let them get away with it!
This video on Youtube gets at some of the same issues, with humor:
“Sarah Palin Bounce” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiIURSJIjOw
Great post — thanks for the good work!
All right — I assumed Elmer would argue with me about this one. That’s why my wording was so barbed in the last few grafs. Where is he?
Sorry - been a busy morning.
I won’t defend McCain. But, I think over the years the left has gotten into this too:
1. I voted against it before I voted for it.
2. When I invented the internet
3. I didn’t realize I was in a Chinese temple.
4. I didn’t know that the nuns had no money
5. Depends on what you mean by “is”
6 There is no controlling legal authority
7. Neil Kinnock
8. My wife has cancer and I love her more than anything in the world.
Did you complain as much about these lies?
Weak stuff.
I win.
Sorry to sound snippy, but I think there are some better arguments you can make. By straying off to things not related to this campaign and which happened 10 years ago (and in some cases didn’t even hapen — like “I invented the internet”) you’ve conceded the argument to me.
This is a walk over, a first found TKO. I expected a better fight from you.
I do understand you’re busy, though. I’ll chalk it up to that.
Am very busy - will get back to you
Sorry — not trying to taunt you or anything, seriously.
Here’s one:
” As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/mccain_plays_dirty_on_obama_se.html
There is a kernel of truth here - Obama did vote for the bill, and then afterward said he didn’t mean to teach sex ed to kindergartners.
That link doesn’t work. Kind of emblematic, no?
“When I invented the internet”.
He never said that, you’re making a case against your own side Elmer.
Also, just to be clear, I’m not referring to “one off” misstatements, like McCain saying Iran armed Sunnis and whatnot. I’m referring to continuous lies done in the context of this presidential campaign.
If you want to bring up Hillary’s Tuzla fantasy, I concede it. I was going to bring that up myself. But when she was caught out on it by videotape, she recanted. McCain’s yet to do that with Bridge To Nowhere.
Let’s try this one:
“it’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten.”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
It was age-appropriate education on sexual abuse. But, god knows no kindergardeners are ever sexually abused in this country. Your party is the sickest!!
Okay, that sounds right. McCain’s ad was fundamentally inaccurate. That’s my point.
I tend to think the B to Nowhere and earmarks claims are even more inaccurate.
So, Obama did support a bill that called for “comprehensive sex education” for grades K and up. McCain’s ad is certainly not a total fabrication. I’ll get back to you on the others as I get time.
I think on the bridge you can claim Palin flip flopped but apparently she did tell the feds “no thanks”
“Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
The pig thing is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t see how anyone might not think that there is a chance that Obama’s pig remarks were directed toward Palin and her hockey mom remarks.
I don’t care about the pig thing. I’m not bringing it into this.
Did she give the money back? No. The expression “no thanks” means “I won’t take it.” She took the money.
McCain-Palin 08: “Not a total fabrication.”
Can i use that slogan or did you copyright it?
Feel free to use it. I’m an “open source” guy.
Nice try but as I have researched this the bill says sex education not education on sexual abuse.
My kid had this kind of “comprehensive sex education” in kindergarten. It amounted to the nurse showing outlines of boys and girls with the private areas colored in, and telling them that they shouldn’t touch each other there.
So the fact that those words are used does not justify the tone and clear implication of the ad.
This one is probably the worst of the bunch. I wouldn’t put too much effort into defending it.
It amounted to the nurse showing outlines of boys and girls with the private areas colored in, and telling them that they shouldn’t touch each other there.
No wonder Mark Foley objected to it.