Dude, it’s called a joke. 
Here’s some good, factual reading if anyone isn’t afraid to actually open their eyes instead of close them. Again, I’m not going to discuss candidates’ views, because those are subjective depending on your own opinions. But the lies are coming fast and furious. And they sure tell you a lot about the candidates running.
An article today from the Associated Press. You can’t get much more unbiased than them.
Analysis: McCain’s claims skirt facts, test voters
By CHARLES BABINGTON – 36 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The “Straight Talk Express” has detoured into doublespeak.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone’s taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain’s skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama’s campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.
McCain’s persistence in pushing dubious claims is all the more notable because many political insiders consider him one of the greatest living victims of underhanded campaigning. Locked in a tight race with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, McCain was rocked in South Carolina by a whisper campaign claiming he had fathered an illegitimate black child and was mentally unstable.
Shaken by the experience, McCain denounced less-than-truthful campaigning. Vowing to live up to his “straight talk” motto, he apologized for his reluctance to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag at South Carolina’s state Capitol in a bid for votes. When the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked the military record of Democrat and fellow Navy officer John Kerry in 2004, McCain called the ads “dishonest and dishonorable.”
Now, top aides to McCain include Steve Schmidt, who has close ties to Karl Rove, Bush’s premier political adviser in 2000.
Politicians usually modify or drop claims when a string of newspaper and TV news accounts concludes they are untrue or greatly exaggerated. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, conceded she had not come under sniper fire in Bosnia after a batch of debunking articles subjected her to scorn during her primary contest against Obama.
But McCain and his running mate Palin, the Alaska governor, were defiant this week in the face of similar reports. Day after day she said she had told Congress “no thanks” to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, a rural Alaska project that was abandoned when critics challenged its costs and usefulness. For nearly a week, major news outlets had documented that Palin supported the bridge when running for governor in 2006, noting that she turned against it only after it became an object of ridicule in Alaska and a symbol of Congress’s out-of-control earmarking.
The McCain-Palin campaign made at least three other aggressive claims this week that omitted key details or made dubious assumptions to criticize Obama. It equated lawmakers’ requests for money for special projects with corruption, even though Palin has sought nearly $200 million in such “earmarks” this year.
It produced an Internet ad implying that Obama had called Palin a pig when he used a familiar phrase, which McCain also has used, about putting “lipstick on a pig” to try to make a bad situation look better. McCain supporters said Obama was slyly alluding to Palin’s description of herself as a pit bull in lipstick, but there was nothing in his remarks to support the claim. Obama accused the GOP campaign of “lies and phony outrage.”
The lipstick wars were fully engaged when the McCain campaign produced another ad saying Obama favored “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners. The charge triggered the sort of headlines becoming increasingly common in major newspapers and wire services monitoring the factual content of political ads and speeches.
“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy,” was the headline on a New York Times article Thursday. “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive,” The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” article said.
Major news outlets have written such fact-checking articles for years. “But in the last two election cycles, the very notion that the facts matter seems to be under assault,” said Michael X. Delli Carpini, an authority on political ads at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. “Candidates and their consultants seem to have learned that as long as you don’t back down from your charges or claims, they will stick in the minds of voters regardless of their accuracy or at a minimum, what the truth is will remain murky, a matter of opinion rather than fact.”
With Palin giving McCain’s campaign a boost in the polls, Obama supporters are nervously watching to see what impact the latest claims will have. Surveys already show that most people believe Obama would raise their taxes — a regular McCain claim — even though independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under his proposals.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds defended the campaign’s statements. “We include factual backup in every one of our TV spots,” he said Thursday.
Obama, of course, has made exaggerated or questionable assertions as well. Earlier this year, for instance, he repeated a claim that more black men are in prison than in college, after news accounts refuted it. He also used a McCain remark about having troops in Iraq for “100 years” to exaggerate McCain’s proposals for being fully engaged militarily in that country.
In general, however, Obama has been quicker to react to news accounts challenging his accuracy. Faced with skeptical reports this year, for instance, he stopped saying he “worked his way” through college, and instead credited hard work and scholarships.
Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now teaches politics at the University of Southern California, said McCain and Obama learned they must stretch the truth “when staying on the high road didn’t work out to their benefit.”
McCain, he said, “tried it his way. He had a poverty tour and nobody covered it. He had a national service tour, and everybody made fun of it. He proposed these joint town halls” with Obama, “and nothing come of it. Through the spring and early summer, that approach didn’t work. You can’t blame him for taking a step back and reassessing.”
Amen
Media Biasism is a real factor in politics today.
Al-Bob: Off-topic: Try to avoid one word posts okay?
Dude, dude dude. You keep coming up with these “facts”, but where do you get them? If internet, that is one of the most unreliable sources in todays society. If newspaper, you do realize that the the news industry is mostly liberal, so they write these articles with stretched facts to make them look bad? And the reason they never write anything bad about Obama is because they want him to win, not because he has nothing to be written bad about. (cough cough spending most of his collage career high on cocaine.cough And yet he still got into Harvard law. Probably the same reason he’s the nominee.)
Disclaimer: Don’t take anything this crazy girl says personally. She has a heridatary curse of getting touchy about politics and always speaking her mind, along with her bad spelling (THANKS A LOT, MOM!).
So essentially you believe nothing unless you witness it personally? All of the facts in that article can be referenced at several sites. You can view Obama’s statements on youtube and find his congressional record on Congress’s official site.
I don’t disbelieve everything they say, but I don’t set on them being facts unless theres strait hard proof. I also don’t really believe politicians too too often, especially if I don’t find them likable. I’ll admit, some of Palin’s statements might are stretched, and maybe McCain has some corruption in him, but hey, thats a thing I like to call politics. I just don’t like it when people say that things are facts just because Obama says so.
I mean, COME ON! People where actually saying Palin faked her pregnancy and ran around in a pillow to hide her daughter being pregnant! (by the way, since I know people will bring this up, after a kid can drive it can be extremely difficult to control them since you are not monitoring wherever they go, and so her daughter was the one who made the mistake)
That’s not always true… the key is to check the sources to see if there is a bias or even good reporting. That’s why I don’t trust anything from Slate about Sarah Palin: I researched the magazine and discovered that it has always been a liberal magazine. (I choose to read Politico more, believing it to be more unbiased and independent.)
That’s not exactly true, either… I have seen on YouTube videos of Obama saying, “I’ve now been in 57 states, I think 1 left to go. One left to go; Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to, even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it…”
Though I didn’t hear word one about it on the news, I did find a real, unbiased copy from Reuters: reuters.com/news/video?videoId=82127
(Wonder if we could get him to list them all… in fact, when was the last time we quizzed any of the candidates on their basic American history/geography?)
The only one that I know to be conservative is Fox news. A news station that doesn’t take sides and just gives news?!? <img src=“{SMILIES_PATH}/youwhaaa.gif” alt=“o_0;;” title="You
Whaaa…" /> <img src=“{SMILIES_PATH}/youwhaaa.gif” alt=“o_0;;” title="You
Whaaa…" /> <img src=“{SMILIES_PATH}/youwhaaa.gif” alt=“o_0;;” title="You
Whaaa…" /> <img src=“{SMILIES_PATH}/youwhaaa.gif” alt=“o_0;;” title="You
Whaaa…" /> They all seem to be either conservative or liberal.
Edited for shouting - KE
If someone went in search of someone or something that was unbiased, they would have a better chance of finding the Pizza Planet truck in The Incredibles.
From Wikipedia:The Incredibles, the truck is vaguely seen on the road while the family is driving on the highway to fight the Omnidroid.
Unbiased news station, here I come!
You asked for it, Rac.
That was your fault. 
Go find that truck for me.
Edited for shouting. – Mitch
A113 - Please try to keep the subject on-topic. Thank you.
– Mitch
A113, will you EVER get over this Wikipedia obsession?
If I ever DO find that unbiased news station, I will probably watch that and tell everyone I know about it, so people can see for themselves the truth and not just a lot of opinionated junk.
When I read the news, I always try to make sure I know where the article is coming from (Associated Press, Reuters, Fox News, what have you) and roughly how they lean. I said this video was unbiased because there was no opinion. The facts should never be biased. The description of the video said exactly what was in the video: At a campaign stop in Oregon, Barack Obama said that he had visited 57 states. Where is the spin?
The facts should never have a bias. Even though I’m a conservative, I would hope that should I ever get into journalism I would be able to present the facts in a clear and open manner, and let the readers/viewers decide for themselves. Maybe this comes from all those papers I had to write - if you don’t clearly cite your sources, it’s plagiarism and you fail.
Should be obvious Slate is liberal after just a few articles.
I figure the best way to be informed is to get news from a large number of sources. And speaking of, my conservative news sites are lacking. Anyone have some good ones?
Glenn Beck…don’t exactely know where ge gets his facts but he does research a lot. I consider him a reliable source.
My moral standards…mine work just fine in my discernment. I make decisions.
Two items for those who are still somehow open to the truth.
(1) Palin’s own campaign now finally admits she lied. In the past she said she had visited troops in Iraq, and had visited Ireland. Her own campaign now admits that’s not true.
cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/13/ … =hpmostpop
(2) Here’s a very good indepth article showcasing how Palin gave plum posts to at least five old schoolmates. That’s a “reformer?” And covers how she governs and treats those who dare disagree with her.
nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po … ref=slogin
From the front page of today’s New York Times. You can claim the NY Times is “liberal” and bury your head in the sand, believing only things you hear on Fox News. But while the NY Times’ editorial pages might be considered to have a liberal bent, they are the most respected newspaper in the world because of their impartiality in the news pages for well over 100 years. Or you could ignore anything not from Fox News and pretend it’s not true.
Two quotes
(it’s worth reading the entire article)
“But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.”
and
"So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages. "
Again, you’ll note that I’m not mentioning Palin’s or McCain’s views, because if you agree (or disagree) with them, that’s you’re right, and what makes America great. What doesn’t, is when candidates so blatently lie, and think we’re stupid enough not to notice (are we?) Like McCain saying he’s going to tell the special interests to get out of Washington – when all of his top advisors are lobbyists (including his top foreign policy advisor, his top economic advisor, and the head of his campaign) are all registered lobbyists. Does he think we’re that stupid? Are we to teach our children that it’s OK to lie through your teeth even when it’s clear as day you’re lying? To distort reality and say anything to get elected?
This is reform?
Of course the truth doesn’t matter.
What matters is to say anything to get ahead.
One sad thing to note. Whether you agree or disagree with Obama, his campaign has taken the high road to McCain’s low road for the past few months. As things are getting tough, it looks like Obama is going to be getting down in the gutter with McCain now. What does that show? That in America, there can now never be an election that is not down-in-the-mud dirty. At a time when the current presiden’s disapproval rating is over 70%, and 82% of Americans think America is on the wrong track, the only choice McCain had was to tear down his opponent any way he could. For the longest time Obama stayed above it, saying he believes in the American people’s judgement. But just as with negative ads working no matter how much people say they hate them, the past few weeks have shown how no one can ever win the Presidency by trying to take the high road when your opponent doesn’t. And this has nothing to do with Obama vs McCain. At the beginning, McCain promised a civil campaign, and kept his word. But he was constantly losing in the polls. So he threw away his honor, hired the very people that smeared HIM in 2000, and went nasty. Now the polls have reflected that, and he is winning. If this was a matter of more people simply liking McCain over Obama, the numbers would have been on his side from the beginning. They weren’t. Only when he hired Karl Rove’s assistant and went nasty, did the numbers turn. That proves that this country will never be able to have a “grown-up” election where issues and what people stand for are important. Ever. The next 100 years of campaigns will look back to this, and on both sides, from this point on now, we’ll never see a candidate who will opt for the high road. Because when your opponent rolls in the mud and you try not to, you will lose. This bodes bad for the future for both parties and our country. But it’s who we are.
1-I found your post “unanswerable” becuase it had too much fat with the meat
No, people in America don’t like smear talking…the media does.
Who does the polls…
who does the investigations nowadays…
Who tells the “true stories” as we know of today…
What ever happened to candidates going around and meeting people to discuss what they believe in. Media does that for them and when their opposing side starts to scratch at them to ruin them they naturally scratch back.
No its not America, Its our liberal media who is leading us astray.
They are the ones who raise Obama up and criticize McCain at his own exceptance speech.
And as a last note;
please keep your posts third party…they are easily offensive and do not belong on this debate thread. Anyone who reads posts like that wil find themselves getting annoyed and angry. Please try to keep your posts third party. Becuase when you do offensive posts like that you automatically push away indpendent voters. You are the cause of their not choosing your side. Becuase you label them
“You can claim the NY Times is “liberal” and bury your head in the sand, believing only things you hear on Fox News. But while the NY Times’ editorial pages might be considered to have a liberal bent, they are the most respected newspaper in the world because of their impartiality in the news pages for well over 100 years. Or you could ignore anything not from Fox News and pretend it’s not true.”
and
Because when your opponent rolls in the mud and you try not to, you will lose. This bodes bad for the future for both parties and our country. But it’s who we are.
so are you saying that all Americans are like our partymembers?
Sorry, if I wasn’t clear, by “you” I didn’t mean anyone here in particular, but to those who would say (and I’ve seen so many of them over the last few weeks everywhere) basically “don’t believe anything you read in any of the papers or hear on the news unless it’s from Fox News, all the other outlets are lying, etc.” And to me, those type of people (on both sides, though it seems always lopsided very heavily on one side) are what scares me. There are so many new media now, without the responsibility of real journalism, that you don’t have to spend 5 seconds to find an outlet that is touting a conservative (or liberal) agenda. But there are plenty of outlets that are known the world over for being professional and unbiased in their reporting of the news (which is different than the editorial pages. Papers like the NY Times or Wall Street Journal have editorial pages that have a definite bent (one liberal, one conservative) but they are professionals, and have a firewall between their editorial pages and the news they cover. It scares me to see people, in their delight over a candidate, basically say “don’t trust anyone except XXXX” because they close their eyes to what is fact. None of my posts here have been about the candidate’s stands and their issues, because as I’ve said a few times already, that’s fair game, and everyone’s entitled to agree or disagree with them. My posts have been about the character of the people running – specificially statements not just said once or twice in passing, but repeated day after day after day – statements that have been proven to be lies by every reputable news outlet (such as McCain saying Obama will raise taxes on those making under $250,000). Every independent, reputable news organizaiton and non-partisan fact checking organizations, like factcheck.org – which reporst on lies by both camps in a totally non-partisan manner – have proven this to be a lie, yet you run into people who say that those pointing out they are lies, are lying, and that the only one you can trust is Fox, etc. That’s what scares me. There is proof in the form of public records, audio clips, etc. It’s plain as day. But there are people that refuse to believe anything unless it comes from “their” side.
Sorry if my posts have been long, but I haven’t touched this topic until lately because I hadn’t seen the need to until this week. It was McCain vs Obama, and both put forth their views. No reason for me to vent. But after two weeks of McCain and Palin repeating out-and-out lies day after day – not just an exaggeration in passing, but lies plain as day, that are immediately shown as lies by existing public documents and audio tape – and still insisting they are true even though every professional news source and documents and footage has shown them lies, has caused me to post. It goes to the heart of the matter of what kind of character these people have. And to me, after eight years of an administration that has done nothing but lie, stonewall, and think they’re above the law (such as a Vice President who has claimed he does not have to follow the rules of the Vice President because he’s part of the Legisliative branch instead of the Executive branch. Look it up), it is my opinion that the last thing this country needs is four more years of the same lying, lobbyist-run government.
===
Sorry if this is sounding repetative, but when McCain and Palin have done nothing but lie day after day, it’s worth pointing out the truth more than once.
From the Los Angeles Times:
MCCAIN WRONG ON PALIN EARMARKS
NEW YORK – John McCain got it wrong Friday when he asserted that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had not requested any earmarks, the spending directives lawmakers insert in spending bills that McCain has vowed to eliminate. Palin, in fact, requested $198 million in federal earmarks in February, including such expenses as $487,000 to fight obesity in Alaska and $4 million to develop recreational trails.
As recently as this year, Palin indicated her support for earmarks in a column in the Fairbanks News-Miner, calling her earmark request “a responsible approach.”
latimes.com/news/nationworld … 5580.story
Is this a lie? Only from McCain and Palin.
Want to see the truth?
Have a look at the public records from the State of Alaska itself, including a memo from Palin herself:
stevens.senate.gov/earmarks/Appr … Alaska.pdf
(PDF file from Alaska senator Ted Stevens’ [yet another Republican currently under corruption charges] own website).
But it must not be true if John and Sarah say otherwise, right?
Edited by KE – combined double post