and you used to think George W. Bush lied a lot?

[realthog]

It'd seem a somewhat elementary principle when running a political campaign to avoid pissing off FactCheck.org, but it's one the McCain campaign has ignored in its latest whopper-packed ad. Here's from FactCheck.org itself:

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding

. . . With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. 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.

Our article, posted two days earlier, debunked a number of false or misleading claims that have circulated in chain e-mails and Internet postings regarding Palin. There is no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind any of the wild accusations that we critiqued.

It strikes me that John McCain has now gotten himself into a position where he can no longer legitimately run for the office of President of the United States. A large part of what Presidents have to do is negotiate with foreign leaders, allies or otherwise. An important component of all such activity is that the parties involved must have some confidence in the honesty and integrity of the people they're dealing with; you have to know that others will not say one thing and do another.

John McCain has over the past few weeks lied so frequently, so blatantly and so prolifically that it will be impossible for any foreign leader -- let alone people within the US -- to place the slightest degree of trust in him. He is therefore incompetent for the role of President, and, if he has a single shred of that patriotism he's constantly telling us he has galore, should stand down at once.

Oh, but of course he's probably lying about the patriotism too . . .

Comments

[ogre-san.livejournal.com]

McCain's lying because the truth doesn't work for him. The media is starting to call him on it, but honestly I don't think it matters much. People remember the lie, not the response, so lying about your opponent and your own accomplishments works. The GOP figured that out a long time ago.

Sigh. I can remember when politicians only lied about things that couldn't be checked. Now we don't even rate the courtesy of that much discretion.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"Now we don't even rate the courtesy of that much discretion."

It doers astonish me that much of the US public haven't yet worked out that every repetition of these blatant lies is a gross insult to them -- the most ostentatious flipping of the bird imaginable.

[lilithsaintcrow.livejournal.com]

On that note...an interesting article from FactCheck.org, about why it's important to challenge such lies. Enjoy.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Many thanks for that link -- v. interesting stuff (and, oddly enough, in part reaching conclusions vaguely similar to some I arrived at via a different route in my Corrupted Science).

[scottakennedy.livejournal.com]

If the U.S. had a functioning news establishment, perhaps McCain's lies would matter. But the Republicans have done a splendid job of establishing the myth of the "liberal" media (a "liberal" media owned by large conglomerates whose financial interests are conservative, to say the least). Any challenge of the lie can then be disputed as "liberal" bias.

Furthermore, McCain can lie not once but many times, and then feed the media a non-story about lipstick, making that the story of the day, rather than the lies.

Bruce Sterling's novel Distraction comes to my mind in regard to the present election.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

I received today my e-headlines from the UK magazine New Scientist. The main story is called (from memory): "US Election Special: The End of the War on Science?"

It struck me as shameful that every single element of the US media, with the possible exception of Us Magazine, should not have asked this question, as a headline, a very long time ago. Instead, as you say, they're obsessing on lipstick.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

And what's wonderful is that truthful statements can be dismissed as lies at the same time -- that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, for example. We have entered a world of complete topsy-turvydom, in which complete falsehoods (McCain is too modest to mention his time as a prisoner of war, for example, uttered by that shrinking violet Sarah Palin) are accepted in utter silence, while truthful statements (Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11) are treated as if they were treasonous.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

You're exactly right: it's the Ministry of Peace scenario.

But to get a closer parallel I guess we have to go back even further: Jonathan Swift, where are you now?

Hey, what fuckin' elitists we are to have read these books! No doubt they were among the ones the blessed St Sarah wanted to ban.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

Books by dangerous Irish radicals and English socialists? Of course.