Lies, Half-Truths and Contradictions: Now McCain is Lying About Factcheck.org

SFGate:

FactCheck.org is one of those (few!) nonpartisan sources where anybody can check out the truthiness in a political advertisement or on-the-trail rhetoric. Everybody trusts them, so they’re often cited in campaign ads.

In an ad released Wednesday called — really — “Fact Check,” the McCain campaign lied about what Factcheck.org said. Says who? Says FactCheck.org.

In “its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest,” Factcheck said Wednesday on its website. “The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said ‘completely false’ attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

“They call the ad ‘Fact Check.’ It says “the attacks on Gov. Palin have been called ‘completely false’ … ‘misleading.’ On screen is a still photo of a grim-faced Obama. Our words are accurately quoted, but they had nothing to do with Obama.”

Read on..

At this point I just keep asking myself “Why would he do something so blatant and stupid”? The McCain camp is no longer even attempting to come remotely close to say or portray things in an honest, straightforward and truthful way.. Is it because they have nothing to base their campaign on? Are they just making outrageous claims in order to draw the attention of the American public and the media away from Barack Obama? Are they really THAT lacking in substance?

If that is the strategy in this, it is pretty lame and disgraceful. These are not the qualities we as a nation should want and need in our leader. It shows an utter disregard for truth, and shows Senator McCain to be a man entirely lacking in integrity, character, or honor.

Haven’t we already been through enough with the lies of the last 8 years? Are we seriously considering MORE? Even WORSE?

From FactCheck.Org yesterday: McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding:

Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn’t come from Obama.

Summary

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama’s attacks on Palin “absolutely false” and “misleading.” That’s what we said, but it wasn’t about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to “dig into her record and background.” The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to “dig dirt.”

Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.

Read the rest or their statement…

Joe Garofoli ends his post with this:

To review: The McCain campaign created an ad called “Fact Check” then distorted — using “Factcheck.org” — the actual facts cited in the advertisement.

There is no way to sugarcoat how lame this is. To do so would just be putting lipstick on a pig.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

About these ads

9 thoughts on “Lies, Half-Truths and Contradictions: Now McCain is Lying About Factcheck.org

  1. Every political campaign’s goal is to get the candidate/party more votes. No matter whether we are talking about lies, truths or something in the middle, the campaign’s goal is to win as many votes as possible. Besides, I strongly doubt that factcheck.org thing is going to be given as much attention as you could think.
    There are other things that will be paid attention to. That’s what I discussed in my last article which is about the running mates: http://dtnaydenov.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/the-running-mates/

  2. So mitkonaidenov, are you saying truth is irrelevant? That integrity and character don’t matter? You’re kidding right?

    ‘Win at any cost’ is not something I want in my president, or any elected leader. Yes, a presidential candidate must want to win, but if the cost is swimming in the depths of the slime and pus, then no thanks. It reflects who he would be as the major decision maker of this nation. We’ve already had that. I want somebody with more character and strength of character than that.

    If McCain had any real character or any integrity, as well as some kind of actual plan to put this country back together again, why can’t he win on that? Just curious..

  3. nwmuse, I understand what you are saying, and I want it to be that way. However, political campaigns sometimes involve distortions. They turn out to be negative to the candidate himself/herself but in this particular situation nobody is going to notice it as much as people noticed Hillary Clinton’s blunders about her visiting Bosnia, for example. The idea of political campaigns is to tell the people what you stand for AND to try to convince them how bad the opponent’s program is… and not only that. A candidate’s political record is also of great importance. If you know a bad decision that your opponent made in the past, then based on how bad it is you decide whether or not to mention it at debates. I recommend that you read Political Polling by Jeffrey Stonecash who’s professor at Syracuse University. The factcheck.org thing is something that people are not going to pay much attention to unless one of the campaigns’ staff decides to discuss it in public. And I somewhat doubt that it is going to have a certain impact on any of the two campaigns.

    “If McCain had any real character or any integrity, as well as some kind of actual plan to put this country back together again, why can’t he win on that? Just curious..”

    I guess you haven’t paid a lot of attention to his speech at the GOP Convention. He talked about how much he fights against corruption in both of the parties, etc. He also has some kid of actual plan to put this country back together again. Well, it is not that different from what Bush does but it doesn’t necessarily mean that this plan is not gonna work in the near future. Times change, so do policies.

    I also prefer Barack Obama but I don’t underestimate McCain’s strong campaign staff as well. Good thing that Barack Obama also has a strong staff. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton lost the primaries mainly because of her inadequate campaign staff.

  4. Thanks for your response. I understand about games and distortions in campaigns. I’m not naive. This feels much different. I simply cannot remember a time, throughout many elections, when a candidate so blatantly lied about their own record, the record of their opponent, and just made things up like this campaign is doing. It is just outrageous. Each day is worse than the day before. I am very aware it is a tactic, but it is despicable.

    There is a line between right and wrong. Often politicians skirt up next to that line, hug that line, straddle that line.. But these guys are now pole-vaulting over that line. They deserve to be called on it.

    I watched John McCain’s speech. I didn’t hear anything about any plans. I heard slogans and platitudes, but no plans. I have to strongly disagree with you there.
    I guess you could say no plan was still a plan..

    George W. Bush has caused more damage to this country than any other president in history. The president that steps in next will have a lot to do to put this country back together again. I am frankly not sure anybody could do it – at least not in one term. I don’t think we are through with experiencing the fallout of a GW presidency. I certainly don’t want to compound that by having McCain take the ball from Bush and run with it over a cliff – taking the country with him..

    I am tired of the lies and the secrecy with no accountability or recourse whatsoever. I want better than that.

  5. I don’t know what this link is for. It says “You are not allowed to edit this post”. Anyway!

    In terms of the McCain speech, I think we have a miscommunication here. I am not talking about the speech as the only source of getting to know what McCain stands for. I gave it as an example of his integrity.

    You can find his plans on his website. Besides, his campaign argues that Obama’s plan to support the small- and middle-income businesses by not cutting taxes to businesses of income that is more than $ 250 000 actually concerns those businesses. So, as you can see, the McCain campaign could win at least on that which is definitely not insignificant.

  6. Except it’s not true.

    Go here and find out how much of a tax cut you will get with Obama’s plan.

    http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

    And McCain isn’t telling people that his healthcare plan will TAX your healthcare benefits as income. So that $5000 (based on your income…for me, it would be close to $1000 and I make good money!!) would be more than wiped out by the taxes I would now have to pay on my healthcare benefits – taxed as income.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014666.php

    McCain offers NOTHING to me. And I am in his Republican demographic!! No McCain. Never.

  7. Thank you, guys, for the links! I appreciate your time.

    MsJoanne, the first link that you gave me gives information about Obama’s tax cut plan but it compares it with the McCain’s tax cut plan only at incomes of less than 100 000. So, what about the other ones: where’s the difference? You say that what I said was not true. To be honest with you, I haven’t read about their tax plans but I read the media instead, and Politico once pointed out what I said here.

    Guys, I am not saying that John McCain is the best candidate. On the contrary, I support Barack Obama for various reasons, but I wouldn’t criticize John McCain as if his plans are the stupidest ones on Earth. He knows how to argue so don’t worry about it. :)

Comments are closed.