truth squad = repackaged lies

Sent by adam schaeffer | 6:10 PM ET | 09-09-2008

If your record is as honorable as you say it is, then there is no need for 4 dozen surrogates. But if you were not telling the truth, 4 dozen surrogates are not enough.

We all know that lies work sometimes, but the question is: why use such a practice?

Fear no attacks, but fear the truth. Ask yourself this: Are you going to serve this nation because this is an honorable cause, or are you just wanting power and willing to do anything to seize it?

Sent by Kim | 7:26 PM ET | 09-09-2008

I am an independent and was considering Obama. He always seemed to take the low road until resent. His obsession with Gov. Palin and his remarks have shown me he is not about the Country, Just Winning.

Sent by Brian | 9:04 PM ET | 09-09-2008

Oh, Geo. Orwell, where are you now?

Sent by RG, Tampa FL | 9:18 PM ET | 09-09-2008

Obsession with Gov Palin? Are you kidding me? You're calling Obama obsessed because he dares to question the truth of the claims that Palin is making. Take note that he is not making personal attacks -- he was the first one to say that her personal life and that of her family is off limits. However, her views on issues that affect this nation and her bending of the truth claiming that she rejected the bridge to nowhere while the RECORD shows that Congress was the one that rejected it and even after the rejection Palin accepted the millions earmarked for the bridge. Considering how people are checking their brains at the door when it comes to Palin I would say Obama is being remarkable restraint in responding to this hysteria!

Sent by dj | 10:13 PM ET | 09-09-2008

What is very clear is that Palin was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it. She grababed earmarks before she was against them, in a ridiculously hypocritcal state that claims to be libertarian while it sucks on the federal teat. She is an oppurtunistic pol who stabs her benefactors in the back. I am telling my dear friends who are dewey eyed McCain supporters that he will be next. She is 100% bush-cheney. That is why the rnc convention went crazy. Whoever believes in the "narrative" is gullible. Look at the issues folks.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 10:19 PM ET | 09-09-2008

The comment on being an independent doesn' make sense. If Obama fights back he's not about the country but if he doesn't stand up for himself then he's a wimp!!! She(Palin) calls herself a "pitbull with lipstick" and she's a hero! Gee'S haven't we had enough pitbulls!!???

Sent by Mickie | 10:35 PM ET | 09-09-2008

Shenanigans. Palin suffers from mad moose disease and sees the truth differently. All she has to do is asked for forgiveness from her almighty Savior. Yup, Yup. Lincoln's party, Republican party, should be taken back from God's warriors and war criminals.
It has been robbed by treason.

What does this VP role net her? That's to be seen. Nonetheless, she's willing to suffer endless series of small humiliations.

McCain unleashed co-dependents who looks for their own faults. Onward, Imperial liars going into their own backyards for dirt. The things voters will rediscover once dirt is shuffled is Palin's monologues are mind numbing and she inexplicably speaks in tongues.

Palin needs to get prepared to move on because this VP is not hers.

Sent by Beth | 10:56 PM ET | 09-09-2008

This election, more so than any other I can remember, makes me ill just thinking about it. I feel sorry for the journalists who have to cover all the distortions, half-truths, straw men, and outright fabrications. I feel powerless enough watching the political spin machines of both parties (but considerably more so on the Republican side) trample the truth, so I can only imagine how the press feels about stories like this.

Sent by jonathon | 11:03 PM ET | 09-09-2008

The biggest problem with the lies told by the McCain campaign is that the media seems unable to look any Republican surrogate in the eye and call a lie on the liar.

What IS that? If my kid told the same "lie by omission" or, frankly... the outright lies and deliberate smear that Sarah Palin keeps repeating and that are repeated over and over by the likes of Nancy Pfotenhauer, Brad Blakeman, and Tucker Bounds -- they'd be in trouble. The LIE would be NAMED as a LIE and there would be consequences.

Yet on the Sept. 9th edition of NPR's Morning Edition, co-host Renee Montagne noted that Gov. Sarah Palin supported the "bridge to nowhere" when campaigning for Gov. Seh asked NPR news analyst Juan Williams, "Is it surprising that she keeps saying that, or repeating that she told Congress 'No thanks' on that bridge?"
But rather than point out that Palin's claim to have "told Congress, 'No thanks,' on that bridge" is A LIE, Williams responded saying, "Well, what they're [the McCain campaign] emphasizing is that she, you know, did eventually turn down the idea without disclosing that early on she was, as you said, campaigning for it back in 2006. ... So, it's a matter of, you know, omission in their view."

-----
Juan... say it after me: YES, THAT'S A LIE. See? Not so hard. Because it IS a lie.
-------------
Tell Governor Palin and the State of Alaska to put OUR money where HER mouth is:

http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html

This is a petition just started to ask Congress and the President of the United States to request that Gov. Palin and the State of Alaska return the funds that are so obviously scorned by Sarah Palin.

The truth is, by the time she got into office, Congress had already released those funds to Alaska to use on any transportation project in the state... and they did. So Sarah didn't speak to Congress AT ALL. And she never told anyone "Thanks, but no thanks." Alaska took the money and kept it.

It is that kind of exaggeration and swagger than typifies the Republican message both by Palin AND McCain.

Where's the beef? Do they have NO real accomplishments that are TRUE that they can point to? Or plans and issues you can stand on? And don't give me that "Agent of CHANGE" -- we already KNOW whose message THAT is.

But honestly, Sarah... if you are REALLY so against those funds... GIVE THEM BACK.

I'm sure the American public can find somewhere to spend the $433,000,000.00 in funding that Alaska received because of that earmark.
----------

These claims by Palin aren't just innuendo -- they are LIES. She didn't just "take a voluntary paycut"... she reduced her MAYOR's salary from $68K to $64K but at the same time hired a "city administrator" at the cost of $60K to help her run a town of 6,000. That's a net cost to Wasilla of $56K.

But does she say the whole truth? NO. She gives you the "I took a voluntary pay cut and that didn't make my husband happy" part and because the media is AFRAID TO CALL A LIE A LIE, they perpetuate the lie as truth.

That's the SAME OLD REPUBLICAN method of distracting the American public from the real facts -- and YOU -- THE MEDIA -- YES, YOU, NPR... are helping them do it.

So don't come whining to me for "support" when a Republican President and Congress wants to cut your funding...

they're just trying to "reform you" and wean you from your socialist tendencies to want earmarks and pork.

Sent by D. Casey | 8:45 AM ET | 09-10-2008

Direct from Palin's Truth Squad, she lost to a black beautiful talented contestant when she ran for Miss Alaska in 1984. Yup, Yup that's the truth.

Sent by Gloree Aime | 10:43 AM ET | 09-10-2008

Calling all registered "American voters" please keep your focus on the "issues"...if the candidates appear to spend more time addressing something elses other than the issues, then ask yourself why am I voting for this person?

Sent by B. McKay | 1:02 PM ET | 09-10-2008

Lie is such a strong word in politics. How would a court of law be characterized? One side sites and argues for evidence that suggests the plaintiff is innocent while the other argument is the polar opposite. Is one position a lie while the other is the truth. We are innundated with information covering the spectrum of distortions between absolute truth and lies. No one media report or source will cover all the facts, but exposure will provide enough information for a voter to make the best decision for themselves in the fall. I am confident in the end that collectively the media will provide clarity in this election.

Sent by Bob | 2:19 PM ET | 09-10-2008

Will the truth squad address the outrageous smear I've read that Gov. Palin does not believe in science (global warming, evolution)? I mean, such accusations can be devastating to a person's candidacy in this, the 21st century.

Sent by Marty | 4:36 PM ET | 09-10-2008

Marty: My understanding is that Gov. Palin believes such things as Creationism should be taught alongside such things as evolution by natural selection (you know - *real* science) in our classrooms.

This is something that is known as a "wedge strategy", and its purpose is to wedge creationism into the schools through the science classrooms and a faux origins debate since they failed to force it into the schools through the courts. What the courts wouldn't do, they're figuring the school boards will.

It's not a matter of "believing" science. Science *is*. It is a method for understanding the universe based on skepticism, rigorous experimentation, and observation. The entire *point* of science, the entire reason it is different from religion, is that no belief is required - it is what it is and it provides whatever answers we're capable of finding, utterly without prejudice to anything about you, the researcher.

Compare this to a belief system such as Creationism, which relies fully on belief in things which cannot be tested, proven, or disproven (a critical component for a theory to be considered scientific). To imagine that these concepts could be taught side-by-side in the same classroom is ludicrous. There could be no coherence or meaning to such a study.

No, it is clear what the purpose of wishing these things in classrooms truly is: to create a furor around a Christian issue the better to smear one's opponents with the label of being insufficiently Christian, with the ultimate political goal (for people like Palin, at least) to institute Christian Dominionist beliefs in this country, and eventually the world.

So if you've heard someone say Gov. Palin doesn't believe in science, it's not true. She *does* believe in human gullibility, though. But sadly, despite the enlightened times we live in, saying someone does not believe in god is far, far more damaging to them than saying they don't "believe" in science ever could be.

Sent by Kasreyn | 5:36 PM ET | 09-10-2008