Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account -- Update

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/g...-posts-e-m.html

Unprecedented, the lengths the left will go to in search of Palin dirt...

First of all, there's no proof that anyone on the left is responsible for this and secondly, the article is more critical of Palin using private email to conduct government business. Just another sneaky trick by the right to cover up their wrong-doings.

And to the contrary, there is precedence to this underhandedness. It's called push polling and it belongs squarely on the right's shoulders.

First of all, there's no proof that anyone on the left is responsible for this and secondly, the article is more critical of Palin using private email to conduct government business. Just another sneaky trick by the right to cover up their wrong-doings.

And to the contrary, there is precedence to this underhandedness. It's called push polling and it belongs squarely on the right's shoulders.

Why is it everything seems to be The Right or The left's fault.

BOTH PARTY'S HAVE FAILED US. 100%.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/18/america/survey.php

Poll finds more voters see Obama as agent of change

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/74468

A LIST FOR "NOT" SELECTING A McCAIN / PALIN TICKET

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOF0B8G...cMkvhQD9381OKO0

Senate advances bill raising military pay

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/t...s_n_127356.html

Troopergate Probe Appears To Be Unraveling

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/...in4454230.shtml

Even GOP Says McCain Must Accept Earmarks

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200809181640.htm

McCain a 'typical Republican': poll

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iurWGGz...5u1aeQD938TK680

AP: Rove says Palin excitement will subside

Edited September 18, 200817 yr by Roman

GOP Convention Spin

September 3, 2008

Lieberman and Thompson make misleading claims about Obama on Day Two of the party in St. Paul.

Summary

Joe Lieberman and his former Senate colleague Fred Thompson both made misleading claims about Obama in their prime time GOP convention speeches on Tuesday. We've heard two of them before – many times.

* Lieberman said Obama hadn't "reached across party lines" to accomplish "anything significant," though Obama has teamed with GOP Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Lugar to pass laws enhancing government transparency and curtailing the proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons.

* Thompson repeated misleading claims about Obama's tax program, saying it would bring "one of the largest tax increases in American history." But as increases go, Obama's package is hardly a history-maker. It would raise taxes for families with incomes above $250,000. Most people would see a cut.

* Lieberman also accused Obama of "voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." But Obama's only vote against a war-funding bill came after Bush vetoed a version of the bill Obama had supported – and McCain urged the veto.

Analysis

We found a few factual issues in Tuesday night's big-name speeches at the convention in Minnesota's Twin Cities.

Obama on Your Side

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat (now Independent) who supports McCain, accused Obama of not reaching out to the other side:

Lieberman: In the Senate, during the three-and-a-half years that Senator Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to get accomplish anything significant. ...

Lieberman at conventionWe don't know what Lieberman considers "significant." But Obama has co-sponsored bills with members of the other party, some of which have been noteworthy. Obama and Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, for instance, teamed up on an initiative to lock down and secure both nuclear and conventional weapons worldwide, such as the shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles that have been proliferating in recent years. According to a report on the bill by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the legislation "enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world; and (2) the United States' ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction." Lugar hasn't objected to Obama's characterization of their partnership or the bill, which became law in 2007, in his ads.

Another example: Obama worked with Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, to write the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which created a searchable database the public can use to look up details on federal grants and contracts. (McCain was also among the original co-sponsors of that bill, so Lieberman may have been tarring his own candidate when he disparaged Obama's legislative accomplishments). Obama and Coburn also got together on a bill to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from issuing open-ended, no-bid contracts for emergency response activities after abuses were found in post-Katrina contracting.

The Truth on Taxes (Again)

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who was in the race himself earlier this year, banged the now-familiar tax drum in his denunciation of Obama when he said, "You don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history."

Thompson at convention We've been here before (repeatedly), but we're happy to reiterate: What Obama is proposing is indeed a substantial tax increase for some, but not for most. Overall, Obama says he would raise income, capital gains and dividend taxes only for taxpayers with family income above $250,000 or singles making more than $200,000. He would also raise corporate taxes through selective “loophole closings.”

For most taxpayers rates would go down. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has described his plan this way:

Tax Policy Center: The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers. ... By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase — a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

It’s true that Obama’s tax proposals overall would raise federal revenues by $627 billion over 10 years. Is that “one of the largest tax increases in American history” as Thompson claimed? And would it be a drag on the economy as he says?

When it comes to assessing the effect that a tax change will have on the economy, the single most relevant figure is the size of the increase or cut in relation to the size of the overall economy. And by that yardstick, Obama’s increase is hardly a history-maker. The largest was the 1942 increase enacted as the U.S. plunged into World War II, and it amounted to 5.2 percent of the entire economy in its first year.

President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase, which Republicans regularly and misleadingly call the largest in history, was actually about one-tenth as large, amounting to 0.5 percent of the economy over its first two years. The TPC calculates that Obama’s overall tax increase, as described by his aides and on his Web site, would be roughly 0.1 percent in its first year, and 0.3 percent on average over 10 years, compared with what people are paying now.

And how would that affect the economy? Not much. The TPC says, “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.” The tax plans of both Obama and McCain would leave the federal government wallowing in huge deficits for years to come, and compared with the economic drag created by deficit spending, the effects of either man’s tax plan is negligible.

Troop Funding Foul Play

Lieberman also said that "colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." That's a highly misleading claim that McCain also touted in an ad this summer. Obama has voted in favor of war-funding bills at least 10 times since becoming a senator. The McCain camp and Republicans cite one vote Obama cast against a funding bill as justification for their claim – but that vote came after President Bush had vetoed a version of the bill that included a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

In fact, most Republicans voted against that 2007 war-funding bill Obama and the Democrats supported. McCain was absent for the vote, but he urged the president to veto the bill. As we said about this subject previously, "Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that ‘McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.’ But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading." And the same goes for Lieberman’s claim at the convention.

— by Viveca Novak, Brooks Jackson and Lori Robertson

From Factcheck.org.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/361590

McCain Against Economic Regulation Before He Was For It

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/dreier

Obama's Youth Movement

Edited September 18, 200817 yr by Roman

This article talks about the misleading ads by both McCain and Obama.

---

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...hoo-full-nation

Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2008

John McCain and the Lying Game

By Joe Klein

Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community—a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me—that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. You might well ask, What has McCain done to deserve this? What unwritten rules did he break? Are his transgressions of degree or of kind?

Almost every politician stretches the truth. We journalists try to point out the exaggerations and criticize them, then let the voters decide. When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth—Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government—but McCain's untruth illuminates a general policy direction, which is sketchy but sort of within the bounds. (Obama's plan would increase government regulation of the drug and insurance industries.) Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends.

McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.

Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack—an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "elite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life—actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press—was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.

This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin—out of pique, I believe—questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues—especially economic matters—with an exceedingly unpopular President.

The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign.

Edited September 18, 200817 yr by Ryan

First of all, there's no proof that anyone on the left is responsible for this and secondly, the article is more critical of Palin using private email to conduct government business. Just another sneaky trick by the right to cover up their wrong-doings.

And to the contrary, there is precedence to this underhandedness. It's called push polling and it belongs squarely on the right's shoulders.

Oh, yes, Greg... I absolutely CONVINCED those radical rightist evangelicals are behind it all!

It will all come out in the wash, I'm sure. Of course, we all know the LEFT would never come up with sneaky tricks to cover up their wrong-doings! Oh, wait... they have done this sort of thing before, in 2005:

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two Democratic Party researchers in Washington illegally obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as they conducted opposition research on the likely Republican Senate candidate.

This article talks about the misleading ads by both McCain and Obama.

John McCain and the Lying Game

Ryan, how do you figure that article is about ads by both McCain AND Obama? I read it twice and none of Obama's "misleading ads" are referenced. In fact, the headline makes it clear exactly what the story is about...

Ryan, how do you figure that article is about ads by both McCain AND Obama? I read it twice and none of Obama's "misleading ads" are referenced. In fact, the headline makes it clear exactly what the story is about...

Here:

Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends.

Here:

Thanks for the article, Ryan. Interesting read.

Edited September 18, 200817 yr by Greg's GL

I think both campaigns have done it, although I believe McCain is far worse about it. Then again, I support Obama. :lol: I think the ad about kindergarten was really pathetic. What is interesting is that McCain/Palin have been called on their statements and ads and continue to move along as if the statements and ads were totally correct.

JP, thanks for the link. That was the woman I was referring to in my post.

Hacking is wrong, but I hardly think it is some left-wing conspiracy. I think it's pretty clear whoever did it did not like Palin and liked Obama. I assume they liked Obama. It might have been someone who just didn't like Palin when she was in Alaska, but I think it's probably someone who thinks they are doing the Ds a favor. It's not like the Democrats told them to go do it. Tying this somehow to the left is a bit extreme in my opinion.

It does demonstrate that public officials really should not set up accounts outside of official spheres. Palin set those accounts up because she wanted to do the public business and not be held accountable through the open records act.

Thanks for the article, Ryan. Interesting read.

No problem Greg. Nice avi btw (who is that?).

Here's an article in which Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NB) speaks about Sarah Palin. Now to be "fair", I'm sure there are Dems who've said the same thing about Obama. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring it up because it's not relevant to what I'm posting, but in the interest of fairness, I figured I might just state it for the record.

----

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/hagel_palin

GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified

5 minutes ago

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said his party's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, lacks foreign policy experience and called it a "stretch" to say she's qualified to be president.

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said in an interview published Thursday by the Omaha World-Herald. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

Could Palin lead the country if GOP presidential nominee John McCain could not?

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.

McCain and other Republicans have defended Palin's qualifications, citing Alaska's proximity to Russia. Palin told ABC News, "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Hagel took issue with that argument. "I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

Hagel, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In July, Hagel traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Though he didn't expect to be asked, Hagel had said he would have considered serving as Obama's running mate.

Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,500, before becoming Alaska's governor in December 2006.

Palin visited soldiers in Kuwait and Germany last year and said in an interview with ABC News that her only other foreign travel had been to Mexico and Canada. She also said she had never met a foreign head of state.

Hagel told the newspaper that other governors have been elected to serve in the White House without experience in Washington. He said judgment and character were also important for the job.

"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."

I think both campaigns have done it, although I believe McCain is far worse about it. Then again, I support Obama. I think the ad about kindergarten was really pathetic. What is interesting is that McCain/Palin have been called on their statements and ads and continue to move along as if the statements and ads were totally correct.

JP, thanks for the link. That was the woman I was referring to in my post.

I don't think it matters who you support....McCain's ads have been far worse and they get more attention for the lies they include. There's a huge difference between the truth stretching to which we've become accustomed in campaigns and flat out lying.

I don't think any of the Democrats lost sleep over the woman that is supporting McCain. I'm not sure what her definition of elitist and out of touch is since she doesn't appear to be living the kind of life that puts her in a position to know.

Edited September 18, 200817 yr by Wales2004

No problem Greg. Nice avi btw (who is that?).

Thanks Ryan. He's Cullen Jones - one of our Gold Medal winners (swimming) in this year's summer olympics.

Here's an article in which Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NB) speaks about Sarah Palin. Now to be "fair", I'm sure there are Dems who've said the same thing about Obama. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring it up because it's not relevant to what I'm posting, but in the interest of fairness, I figured I might just state it for the record.

Another good one. And IA, there are probably some Dems that have said the same thing about Obama. Thanks again!

Edited September 18, 200817 yr by Greg's GL