Untruths become facts as campaign heats up

McCain, Obama camps argue over 'Bridge to Nowhere,' tax increases

From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication, a distortion or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.

"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for — then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.

As the presidential campaign moves into a final, heated stretch, untrue accusations and rumors have started to swirl at a pace so quick that they become regarded as fact before they can be disproved. A number of fabrications about Palin's policies and personal life, for instance, have circulated on the Internet since she joined the Republican ticket.

Aggressive repetition
Palin and John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, have been more aggressive in recent days in repeating what their opponents say are outright lies. Almost every day, for instance, McCain says rival Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000.

Fed up, the Obama campaign broke a taboo on Monday and used the "L-word" of politics to say that the McCain campaign was lying about the Bridge to Nowhere.

Nevertheless, with McCain's standing in the polls surging, aides say he is not about to back down from statements he believes are fundamentally true, such as the anecdote about the bridge.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers noted an Obama advertisement released yesterday that says, with no citation, that McCain's economic plan would take money away from public schools. "Absolutely, it's a lie," Rogers said.

Quoting the National Education Association, Obama aides said McCain's plan to freeze discretionary spending would cut funding for local education agencies, Head Start, teacher quality grants and special education.

Dominant themes trump facts
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."

For now, there appears to be little political reason to back down. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, even though his plan would actually cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has proposed eliminating income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration.

McCain's pitch as a reformer — especially as an opponent of pork-barrel spending — does not seem to have been damaged by media reports of his running mate's pursuit of earmarks, first for her home town of Wasilla and then for Alaska. Obama's once-sizable 32-point advantage on which candidate would do more to change government is down to 12 points.

"We have created a system where there is not a lot of shame in stretching the truth," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

A slew of distortions that have spread through e-mail and on the Internet has also put Palin on the receiving end of some of that truth-stretching — so much so that the campaign dispatched a group of supporters yesterday to act as a "truth-squadding team." The unfounded charges include that Palin cut special-needs funding in Alaska and that she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party.

....

There is more to the article if you really want to see it at  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26632984/

Our entire political process is based on hardcore, outright, blatant propoganda. Tokyo Rose might as well become a campaign manager. The thing is, soooo many people will agree that it is ridiculous. But then turn around and argue with great fervor using the exact same propoganda facts that are given thinking that somehow the other candidate is more dispicable than their own. And what's terrible is that people believe it. The figures above say that a huge chunk of senior citizens think that Obama said he's going to raise their taxes when he expicitly said the opposite. People think McCain is trying to destroy education. Just because somebody said it.

US politics might as well be declared a new religion, because it has become an article of faith and emotion rather than empirical pragmatism (no offense to religion there, I think most religious people will agree Religion is about faith and emotion). At the GOP convention Giuliani lead the entire audience in a chant of "drill baby drill" (having to do with the need to drill for oil), it was eery to listen to it. It wasn't long before (I can't remember which speaker it was now) had the entire audience hissing and jeering at Tom Brokaw who was sitting there for being part of the liberal media that wants to destroy McCain. At the DNC you can see people in the audience crying because they got to see Obama. I watch these and think I'm on a televangelist network and somebody is about to get on stage and start rolling around speaking in tongues while somebody passes out snakes.

 When they take the stage they can say absolutely anything they want, when they are on TV they can lie without remorse because they know that the majority is going to buy into it, or at least a little bit of it. It's ridiculous to see how much they lie and bicker, and then turn around and try to claim that the other person is lying and is a disgrace. Obama is taking flak now for saying "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" about McCain, completely and totally about McCain, and now the McCain camp is up in arms saying that he is a sexist bastard and shouldn't be president if he's going to say such dispicable things about Sarah Palin (who it wasn't even directed towards.) And the Irony is that McCain used that exact same phrase referring to Hillary Clinton. How is that not disgusting? "Oh but Obama is much worse, he said such and such about whatever" you say to me, and I'm sure he did say something awful. Both sides are an abomination. And whoever wins will be one of if not the most powerful man on earth. How terrifying is that?

 How can any american citizen watch this train wreck and then go and vote for somebody without a vomiting in disgust for the choice you're making (whichever choice that is)?

If people in this country valued the facts or truth then we would not have elected George Bush for a second time. People too often buy into oversimplified mantras such as "tax cuts" and "big government" without actually looking at what each politician stands for.

George W. Bush has in many ways been the biggest advocate of big government since F.D.R., and not the help-the-people big government, but the authoritarian and abusive kind of big government.

We should have something more akin to what France has. Politicians are only allowed to campaign for a set period of time and all of them are only allowed to spend the same amount of money. It would make politics so much more open and issue-based than it is now.

I will admit the campaign this election cycle is more honest and open than it was last election cycle, but that isn't saying very much.

It's basically the job of campaigning politicians to exploit stupid idiots who are willfully ignorant. I mean, is it really so wrong to lie to a voter if you're 100% sure the voter will believe everything you say and never look up the facts? If somebody believes Obama is going to raise their taxes, and they don't go to Obama's web site and look at his whole tax plan and see that he's actually going to cut their taxes, then that person is an idiot who wants to be stupid and wants to be lied to, because it makes it easier for them to vote for McCain if they think Obama is the devil. This works both ways. Too many Americans are willfully ignorant, and it's really disgusting.

Now if taxes are the most important issue to that voter, and they don't do their own research, they're an idiot and they shouldn't be voting. But millions of these idiots who vote based on 1 or 2 buzzwords climb out of the woodwork every 4 years and decide our future for us.

It works the same for both sides. I swear, if I hear somebody say McSame one more freaking time...

People on the left buy into stupid catch phrases, platitudes, and empty words just as badly as people on the right, it happens equally on both sides. I actually had a friend tell me he liked Bush because he's fiscally conservative. I LOL'd

Once you realize that it takes a special kind of asshole to become a politician and a special kind of lying, back-stabbing extraspecial asshole to reach prominence as a politician, you tend to lose respect for all political processes.

Very nicely put.

QFT

Just dont forget about the republican congress, they are more guilty of this than Bush is.

also at opening. I gave up on the politcal process along time ago. It's just pathetic. The only reason to follow along now is purely entertainment, seeing how each side stardegizes and builds their webs of deciet and lies. It's almost like watching a sport, except the losers are all the citizens.

Catch phrases and slogans are effective because they are comforting and easy to remember. Really campaign managers are just good marketers and talented at brand positioning. Such "lowest common denominator" campaigning pays nice dividends at the polls, so that's never going to change.

@Ghost. The problem with your analogy is that Obama's website doesnt tell you the whole story. He doesnt tell you that people with 200k+ incomes are 99% of the time small business owners. He doesnt tell you what the consequences of raising taxes on the largest block of employers and job creators are. He doesnt tell you that large corporations pay taxes via their pricing structure. He doesnt tell you that raising taxes, or as he puts it "removing tax breaks", on corporations will result in higher prices for all consumers, especially poor and middle class. He doesn't paint a picture of what life would be like if consumer prices go up and unemployment goes up and payroll taxes increase and small businesses fold. SO McCain my be lying by saying Obama wants to raise your taxes, but Obama is omitting the terrible consequences his economic plan will wreak.

It's not Obama's job to give everybody in America an economics 101 class so they can understand the ups and downs of his tax plan. He just puts his tax plan up there. McCain does the same thing.

But unemployment went down for 8 years in a row under Clinton. Democrats always handle the economy better. When people are afraid of losing their jobs, they vote for Democrats. When people are afraid of losing their lives or their wars, they vote for Republicans.

Republicans are generally masters of fear politics. They aren't based on anything substantial, but rather manipulating people's fears of potential problems, such as foreign invasion and whatever other kind of fear they can pop into people's head, such as that Obama is a Muslim terrorist in disguise.