Better Piranhas Needed

by publius

Sarah Palin -- for apparently the 23rd time -- again flat-out lied about the Bridge to Nowhere today. The press has done a fairly decent job reporting the inaccuracy, but she and the McCain campaign are just rubbing the press's nose in it at this point. They clearly feel like they have the press pretty much where they want them. I'm curious to see if the press will step up its criticisms, or whether it will cower in fear that Steve Schmidt might say something mean about them again. Kevin Drum gets it exactly right:

And not get too sanctimonious about this, but this really is a test of some kind for the press. This lie is unusually egregious given the plain facts of the situation (Palin was eagerly supportive of the bridge until after Congress pulled the earmark, at which point she reluctantly decided to take the money but use it for other projects), and if the media allows the McCain campaign to get away with it — if they relegate it to occasional closing paragraphs and page A9 fact checks — well, that means McCain knows he can pretty much get away with anything. The press will be writing its own declaration of irrelevance. Interesting times indeed.

Comments

[wagonjak]

I surf the webs hours every day...mainly the best progblogs, and the lead story I'm seeing in most of them is about nervousness...fear and anger at the wimpy campaign Obama seems to be running, and the nasty attacking one McKrusty and sidekick are shoving down the willing throats of the Corporate media and the American Public...

Will the Obama campaign repeat the mistakes of the past?...will the ghosts of past campaigns, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry come to visit them on election night?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Ugh]

The press has been irrelevant for quite some time now. Had they been relevant since Bush's election, he and Cheney would be in prison.

[someotherdude]

This stuff is important, but not as much as you guys think. You are going to have to attack McCain and Palin where their strengths are…and as far as most folks are concerned that’s his military record and her ‘small town values.’

You better get personal or we are going to lose.

[JoshA]

This situation reminds me of a Dave Barry column I read about Iran-Contra. The basic jist was the media would ask Reagan questions, like "did you authorize the sale of weapons to Iran" and Reagan would say stuff like "everyone who can remember where they were August 23, 1985, raise your hand." (Barry tells a joke about how the reporters checked their diaries, and it turned out that they had all sold arms to Iran that day).

Anyway, the reaction of the public was to get mad at the reporters for asking the questions. "Leave him alone, you media!"

I sorta get the sense that's the reaction to Palin too. She's is almost comically corrupt, yet the reaction appears to be resentment at the media for shyly pointing it out.

If that's the reaction, we're screwed as a country.

[John (not McCain)]

"The press has done a fairly decent job reporting the inaccuracy"

It was fun (and by fun I mean infuriating) listening to Juan Williams on NPR this morning. He was trying everything he possibly could to avoid actually telling the truth about the Bridge to Nowhere/Palin lie. It was like listening to a McCain campaign staffer. I looked for a transcript, but couldn't find one.

[Porcupine_Pal]

Obama seems to know what he is doing.

He has been as consistent as a metronome in this process, over nearly two years. Thoughtful, truthfull, considerate, informative.

After eight years of rote public statements, and ill informed 'gut' decisionmaking by our public officials, would it be unreasonable to think that the public will credit Obama for these quite admirable traits, rather than discrediting his campaign for not having enough 'calcium'.?

God I hope so.

[Anarch]

The McCain campaign, like everyone else, holds the press in utter contempt. I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting for the press to stand up for itself.

[Incertus]

It was fun (and by fun I mean infuriating) listening to Juan Williams on NPR this morning. He was trying everything he possibly could to avoid actually telling the truth about the Bridge to Nowhere/Palin lie. It was like listening to a McCain campaign staffer. I looked for a transcript, but couldn't find one

I heard that too, during the ten minutes I was in my car on the way to the train station, and you're right. Williams contorted himself into a pretzel trying not to say that Palin lied, when in fact she had done just that.

I think the real problem, though, is that even if the mainstream press screams the story at the tops of their lungs, lots of people still won't hear it, because they get their information from Fox News, or worse, from Rush Limbaugh, et al, and Palin's version of the story is what will be repeated ad nauseam between now and November.

[Lee]

I'm not sure Kevin Drum is being appropriately deferential.

Sarah Palin will tell us exactly what she wants us to know whenever she wants to tell us. If we are sufficiently well behaved.

That this (barely if at all exaggerated) pronouncement did not make the media world erupt like Mt. St. Helens blowing its top confirms for me how whupped and sycophantic most of them are. This is just another brick in the wall of insults to the American people--at least to those who think government should be by and for the people.

I guess it makes the prospective slide away from constitutional safeguards easier to handle if the media doesn't bother exercising their First Amendment freedoms anyway.

[Scott McElhaney]

I have not been paying enough attention to the Obama campaign's take on this, but since conservatives seem to have made a tactic out of criticizing the media in order to get a pass on things later on, has the Obama campaign tried (or tried hard enough) to criticize the mainstream media for giving Palin a pass on the Bridge to Nowhere/truthfulness issue in order to have a counterbalancing effect? Or does that just play into the media's habit of just reporting both "sides" of an issue, even if the issue is whether the Earth is flat ("Most scientists say the Earth is round, but some say it is actually flat.")?

[Adam]

OK, I'll bite: Where's the "lie"?

Here's what I understand to be the facts:

1. Palin initial supported the Bridge.

2. Following public opposition, Congress removed the earmark, and instead simply sent the money to Alaska as a block sum.

3. Palin decided not to use those funds for the Bridge but, rather, used them on other state transportation priorities.

In short, she declined to spend federal funds on the bridge. Isn't that exactly what she said she did?

Is everyone just hung up on the fact that she was for it before she was against it? I'm not sure what the problem is that with -- she ended up in the right place, and now she's reiterated the fact that she ultimately made the right decision.

I mean, it's not like she first tended toward the right decision (e.g., supported funding for the troops), then ended up making the wrong decision (e.g., voted against funding for the troops), and then bragged that she initially had the right instinct.

[Gary Farber]

Adam.

[...] The McCain campaign released a television advertisement Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."

That last sentence is what you asked about.

[John (not McCain)]

"3. Palin decided not to use those funds for the Bridge but, rather, used them on other state transportation priorities."

Such as building access roads to the bridge she doesn't support. What a reformer.

[Lee]

Just to clarify and avoid lying, she could say:

"We decided not to build the bridge after all, but we kept the US taxpayer's money anyway. We figured out other stuff we wanted to spend your money on!"

Yea, more accurate, but somehow doesn't quite have the mavericky reformer ring she is going for.

[Hogan]

In short, she declined to spend federal funds on the bridge. Isn't that exactly what she said she did?

No, it isn't. She has said (repeatedly) that she "told Congress 'Thanks but no thanks.'" Taking the money and spending it in Alaska isn't "no thanks." It's as if she turned down my offer of a slice of cake, then took the cash equivalent from me and spent it on ice cream--that doesn't count as saving me money by skipping dessert.

[Adam]

Gary,

But she *did* stop the Bridge to Nowhere: She refused to spend the granted federal funds on it.

Again, where's the lie? The authors of that WSJ article didn't identify a "lie" -- their harshest accusation was that the story required a "caveat."

[Jeff]

Palin decided not to use those funds for the Bridge but, rather, used them on other state transportation priorities.

She's claiming that (a) she stopped the bridge; (b) she said "Thanks but no thanks"; (c) she's 100 and 10 % against "earmarks".

3 big fat whoppers.

I mean, it's not like she first tended toward the right decision (e.g., supported funding for the troops), then ended up making the wrong decision (e.g., voted against funding for the troops), and then bragged that she initially had the right instinct.

The first bill didn't have a lot of cr@p the second one did. Bush was using the second bill (and his "If you're not for us, you're against us" BS) to get funds not related to the war, at the expense of proper equipment for the troops. Kerry made the right decison both times.

[agentzero]

Adam,

Not quite.

The Federal earmark was (I may be a little off on the figures here, but not much) about $320 million of the estimated $360 million needed to build the bridge. That meant Alaska would have to come up with the $40 million difference. Palin didn't want to spend Alaska's money that way (but apparently was perfectly happy to spend the Federal government's money that way. In other words, if the earmark had been for the whole $360 million, the bridge would have been built.)

This is inconsistent with her statement that "I told Congress, if we want a bridge, we'll pay for it ourselves." More like "I told Congress, we want a bridge but only if you pay for it."

[KCinDC]

She "stopped" it after there was no longer any prospect of getting it because of the public outcry. It's like a bank robber claiming he turned himself in to police when he means he "voluntarily" went with them in handcuffs after they broke down his door.

[Adam]

Hogan,

You said: She has said (repeatedly) that she "told Congress 'Thanks but no thanks.'"

You're leaving out a part of the quote: What she's actually said is, I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere.

In other words, you analogy is completely inapt.

My goodness, people sure are up in arms over this candidate. I must admit that it's all rather fun to watch.

[gwangung]

In other words, you analogy is completely inapt.

Um, no.

You're not making sense.

[Adam]

Agentzero (if that is your real name),

Congress sent Alaska hundreds of millions of dollars, which could have been spent on the Bridge, but Palin decided not to. She's said that "[i]f our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves" -- and they didn't want to pay for it, so they didn't build it.

Again, where's the lie?

[Anarch]

Adam: do you dispute that if, Congress had ponied up the full $360 million instead of $320 million, Palin would likely have authorized the construction of the bridge?

[hilzoy]

Adam: I'm with everyone else in saying that the lie is "I told the Congress: thanks but no thanks."

(a) Congress had removed the earmark by the time she took office, so she didn't get to "tell" them anything about it.

(b) She did not decline any offer of theirs. See (a) above, plus: what was on offer was money, and she took that.

(c) She campaigned in support of getting that money. She did not oppose it's being appropriated, which is what "I said thanks but no thanks" clearly implies.

Shorter me: she didn't just say she opposed the bridge, or stopped it. She said something more specific, which is not true.

Fwiw, I find the fact that they are going on about this bizarre, even apart from the lies. They are saying that Palin tried to reform the earmarks process while a governor. The federal earmarks process. That would be a very odd thing to try to do. Why on earth not try to get the money you can, and reform your own appropriations process instead?

I wouldn't care what her position was on the bridge, except that they're lying about it.

[liberal japonicus]

Knock yourself out, Adam. Pay attention to the quote below the picture.

[Carleton Wu]

But she *did* stop the Bridge to Nowhere: She refused to spend the granted federal funds on it.

How exactly is that saying 'thanks but no thanks'? What exactly did she say 'no thanks' to from Congress?

Ending the bridge project isn't saying 'no thanks' to Congress- at that point they'd already removed the earmark. And she certainly lied when she claimed that if Alaskans wanted a bridge they would build it themselves- she was perfectly happy to take the money for the bridge before the earmark was cancelled.

Sarah Palin has *no* history of opposing earmarks or pork. Quite the opposite- she's been a proud supporter of their congressional delegation's attempts to bring home the pork.

[ken]

How is this Palin lie any different from the fairy tale lie about Obama being against the war on Iraq? He gave a meaningless speech about Iraq when it did't matter. But when he actually had to take a stand on the issue he voted to support it every chance he got.

Neither one of them tell the truth about their past. We've seen that many liberals don't mind when their guy does it just like many conservatives don't mind when it's their guy or gal doing the lying.

This is just one of the many reasons I quit Obama for Hilary during the primary campaign.

[Adam]

Anarch:

I don't have a clue -- you're asking for me to step back in time and make a prediction as to an event we know, for a fact, did not come to pass.

Let's stick with what actually did and did not happen, ok? We're trying to establish whether Palin's statements are factually accurate.

[Porcupine_Pal]

It has occured to me that McCain/Palin would like to draw Obama into a discussion over earmarks generally, and that this is just an introduction.

Obama has a list of earmarks that he put in that would take half an hour to read, in summary.

[Carleton Wu]

Adam,
let me emphasize this question: What exactly did she say 'no thanks' to from Congress?

Hint: here are some transcripts of Palin back in '06. See if you can find 1)opposition to the bridge or 2)her saying 'no thanks' to anything from Congress.

[Adam]

"Liberal Japonics":

Look at my first post, above: No one's disputing that she originally supported the Bridge.

The only question is whether she lied when she said she declined to spend federal money on the Bridge. That is the statement that Publius is challenging.

And I note that Hilzoy is making the same error as Hogan: She said thanks but not thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere. She's never said that she completely eschews federal funds for infrastructure projects. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Hilzoy is "lying" about Palin's words if she's suggesting that Palin claims to have eschewed federal transportation money altogether.

Seeing how this conversation is plaing out, it's becoming clearer and clearer that Palin manifestly did not lie. People are arguing that she should have included more detail, or that she flip-flopped. But there's simply no "lie" there.

Now when are you folks going to get back to the Politics of Hope or whatever? All of this complaining strikes me as "Old Politics."

[Carleton Wu]

How is this Palin lie any different from the fairy tale lie about Obama being against the war on Iraq? He gave a meaningless speech about Iraq...

It is different by virtue of Obama's statement being true. I know that's probably complicated for a troll to process- one of the statements is a true retelling of past events, the other is not.
He explained his opposition (I wonder what would've been a 'meaningful speech' given that he wasn't in a position to stop the war singlehanded). Since that time, he's supported attaching timelines to funding bills etc.

You are (or, claim to be) a big Hillary booster- what did Clinton do *differently* than Obama to stop the war?

[Adam]

Carleton Wu:

"What exactly did she say 'no thanks' to from Congress?"

She said "no thanks" to spending federal money on the Bridge to nowhere -- precisely what she said in her big convention speech.

[Hogan]

How is this Palin lie any different from the fairy tale lie about Obama being against the war on Iraq? He gave a meaningless speech about Iraq when it did't matter.

What do you think "being against the war in Iraq" means? Is it possible for anyone other than the 535 members of Congress to be against the war in Iraq?

[Adam]

Ah ha! I finally get what all of this "Hope" and "Change" business has been about:

1. You're changing Palin's statements, by truncating her "thanks but no thanks" line, and then

2. You're hoping that people will believe that Palin told a lie.

[Hogan]

She said thanks but not thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere.

The only thing there was for her to say "thanks but no thanks" to was money. Congress was never planning to deliver an already finished bridge for her to install.
And she took the money.

[Carleton Wu]

She said "no thanks" to spending federal money on the Bridge to nowhere -- precisely what she said in her big convention speech.

At that point, the earmark had been removed, so Congress was not telling her how to spend the money.

She could also claim- just as truthfully- that she said 'thanks but no thanks to Congress for that funding for involuntary abortions'.
Or, I shall now say 'no thanks, Adam' to your offer to engage in joint lewd sex acts with minors.

[Casual Reader]

I think the spirit of the statement is a lie. The audience is meant to take away from it that Palin is a maverick who will turn her back on her own state in order to stand by the country on the principle that the taxpayers' money should not be wasted on earmarks. The true story is somewhat different. The actual statement used to convey the intended take-away is defensible from a "literal truth" standpoint, but the take-away is not.

The problem with this is that the real story is more complicated than the media can convey to the average voter in ten seconds. The lie is easy to tell, but the truth is hard to explain.

This is easy to see from the discussion here now. Adam challenges the "liar" assessment, and there's a protracted discussion of the gory details. A certain clause is cited. We've got actual figures. We discuss what happened to the money that didn't build the bridge. We may yet go on to point out what power Palin did or didn't have over the decision to begin with. And on and on.

Woe to the reporter who tries to explain this. In the time it takes to explain the whole story to a voter, the candidate can repeat the sound bite version of the story ten more times.

To a voter, the Truth can still appear to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors, or a lot of fancy talk from someone just trying to confuse the issue. Meanwhile, Palin's words are clear and comprehensible.

[hairshirthedonist]

We're trying to establish whether Palin's statements are factually accurate.

Even if her statments regarding the Bridge to Nowhere were factually accurate, they could still be intentionally misleading, which is probably the larger point here. (And I'm not saying they were even factually accurate.)

If she's so against earmarks, why the lobbyist for Wasilla? And why are they harping on this stupid bridge? Maybe because it's the only earmark the general public is aware of to any significant degree. It's obviously calculated to prey on what little knowledge of such things the public actually does have, while taking advantage of the public's otherwise vast lack of information.

Let's make statements that will almost certainly mislead the vast majority of people who won't bother to find out the whole story. That's not "lying."

[Adam]

"The only thing there was for her to say 'thanks but no thanks' to was money."

She could have spent the money on the Bridge. She didn't. And that's what she said in her speech.

I see that the accusations are starting to repeat themselves. I think Palin can rest easy tonight, knowing that she's no liar -- even if one or two left-wing bloggers think otherwise.

[Lee]

The lie is in presenting herself as an anti-earmark crusader as evidenced by declining the bridge. Her support for the pork waned when the public outcry finally reached the tundra and made Alaska a laughingstock. The lie is that not building the bridge is NOT the same as not lobbying for, aquiring and spending earmarks.

Spending US taxpayer money on the biggest pigs around the pork trough is not improved by the fact they change their minds on what to spend our money on.

So do me a favor, close your eyes and imagine McCain in a sea of lime green sneering with a creepy smile, "thaaaat's not chaaaange we can belieeeeve in."

[Carleton Wu]

She could have spent the money on the Bridge. She didn't. And that's what she said in her speech.

If you paraphrase her to remove the 'no thanks' and 'congress' parts of her statement, then it's true. But that is dishonest of you- her statement had her saying 'no thanks to Congress' for something. And that something was something that Congress was not telling her to do.

Do you *understand* that point? That claiming to have decline an offer that was not offered is not being honest?

I might add, I say 'no thanks' to your offer to help me beat up elementary school children for their lunch money.

[ken]

Hogan,

At the time Obama was claiming to be against the war on Iraq he had already voted repeatedly to support it.

So I guess you could say he was against it before he was for it, but then that would make him look foolish as well.

Look, the fact is that the fairy tale lie about Obama's being against the war was swallowed whole by many liberals who did not take the time to examine the actual record. This is exactly what many conservatives do regarding Palin and her lie about the 'bridge to nowhere' today.

There is no need to defend the indefensible. If you can be honest enough to admit that Obama is a liar who will do and say anything to get elected you can gain some self respect. But this does not mean you personally do not have to support him.

I will not trust or support Obama. But that is me. My sense is that Obama is in this strictly for himself, that the limit of the 'change' he will bring is just getting himself elected, and I do not want him anywhere near the white house.

I suspect McCain and most moderate republicans know that Palin is lying. What troubles me though is that so many democrats do not know that Obama is lying as well. This self delusion is dangerous and unhealthy for our nation.

[gravityhouse]

Carlton Wu hit it right on the head. Any project that she didn't use the earmark money on, she has "said no" to. She could "truthfully" say, "I said no to the 10 roads leading directly into the Bering Sea." You know very well what this repeated claim about the bridge is meant to imply Adam. She's trying to portray this incident as an example of exemplary political courage(particularly in terms of being Mrs. Anti-Earmark), and it is mendacious in the extreme.

Imagine a politician campaigning for an expensive project. They say all sorts of things in support of said project. Then there is a huge outcry in opposition and Congress refuses to earmark money for this project. Next, this same politician uses the fact that the project was never completed as a testament to his/her political courage and judgement. How utterly ridiculous.

[Adam]

Carleton Wu,

You just conjured up an analogy involving the beating of schoolchildren, appropos of nothing? That's a bit scary.

Anyway, the facts are beyond dispute: Congress gave Alaska money -- money that originally would have been required to be spent on the Bridge, but ultimately could be spent on the Bridge or on a variety of other infrastructure projects. Palin decided not to spend it on the Bridge. And now she's taking credit for that.

If we're going to draw a proper child-related analogy (without raising the specter of beating children), it would be more like this:

Uncle Joe: Jimmy, as you know, I was going to give you a dollar and make you spend it on a candy bar. But instead I'm just going to give you a dollar, which you can spend it on whatever you want.

Jimmy: Thanks, I'll spend it on a book. As for the candy bar idea, I've got to say thanks but no thanks. If I decide that I want a candy bar, I'll save up my own money and buy one.

So, under your theory, Jimmy would be lying if he went and told his buddy, "I told my uncle 'thanks but not thanks' to a candy bar." What plainly makes no sense.

Know hope!

[Gary Farber]

How to save taxpayer money.

[hairshirthedonist]

If Jimmy were trying to convice his friend he didn't like taking money from his uncle, because taking money from one's uncle is just plain wrong, by telling him said "no thanks" to a candy bar, would that be okay? Even though Jimmy took the money? (God, this is stupid.)

[Gary Farber]

"But she *did* stop the Bridge to Nowhere"

Congress stopped it. "Stopping" something after it's been stopped isn't stopping something.

Nobody outside Alaska would care if Alaska spent money as it would. The whole scandal about the bridge is that the American taxpayer was being charged for a dubious project. Congress stopped that, against Palin's wishes.

That after that, Palin decided it wasn't worth Alaska's money is of interest to Alaskans, but is irrelevant to the original issue.

And she's claiming that she, not Congress, saved the American taxpaper that money. That's a lie.

[Gary Farber]

"Look at my first post, above: No one's disputing that she originally supported the Bridge."

Except Palin. And McCain.

[Adam]

Gravityhouse:

"She could 'truthfully' say, "I said no to the 10 roads leading directly into the Bering Sea."

Except that no one ever suggested that she spend federal money on 10 roads leading directly into the Bering Sea.

By contrast, there were quite a *lot* of people, including many in Congress, who wanted her to build the Bridge to Nowhere, both at the outset of the legislative debate and upon the legislation's enactment. And after originally proposing to earmark the money for the Bridge specifically, Congress ultimately changed the legislation to give her a lump sum to spend on the Bridge or other infratructure, which she spent on the latter.

You don't like that Palin hasn't said more about the Bridge than those plainly accurate statements found in her convention speech. But that doesn't make her a liar.

I wish Barack Obama would explain more about the specifics of his tax plan. I think that his (changing) proposals are vague and that they lack crucial context. But that doesn't make him a liar, either.

Coming from supporters of a campaign so devoted to "hope" or some sort of "new politics," this attack-dog mentality is a bit jarring.

[Lee]

Hard to keep your stories straight, huh, Ken? One track of the Republicans is that sure Obama was on record against the war, but that was before he was in the US Senate, so it shouldn't really count. At the time he was running for US Senate, and given the mood of the country whipped into a frenzy by what we now know are lies, it can fairly be called a principled stance.

But you want to ignore your cohorts' acknowledgment that his support was not only before the war began, but before he was in the US Senate by claiming he supported the war before he was against it! I'm sorry, you will have to go to a site full of stupid uninformed people to sell that load.

I get that you don't and won't support Obama, and the reason doesn't really matter. I'm sure you are exactly clever enough to come up with something. And it sure is easier if you don't let facts get in your way.

[Hogan]

I have to go say "Thanks but no thanks" to my bartender a few times before I stagger home.

[Gary Farber]

"My sense is that Obama is in this strictly for himself,"

My sense is that you're an incredibly bad troll, who should be ignored.

[Adam]

hairshirthedonist:

"God, this is stupid."

How do you think I feel? Another commenter asked me to engage a hypothetical about beating schoolchildren.

Gary: Can you point to a single instance when McCain or Palin said that Palin did not originally support the Bridge?

And you're wrong. Congress didn't stop the Bridge to nowhere. It wrote a check to Alaska, and Palin declined to spend that money on the Bridge.

Back to my example above: when Uncle Joe gave the money to Jimmy, he didn't stop Jimmy from buying the candy bar. In fact, if he later claimed to have stopped Jimmy from buying the candy bar, he'd have (to borrow a popular term from around here), he'd have lied.

(Could somebody help Carleton out by translating this analogy into one where children get beaten?)

[Anarch]

Adam: She could have spent the money on the Bridge. She didn't. And that's what she said in her speech.

Wait, what? That's not what she said. What she said was:

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere... If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.

Nowhere in there did she say that she could have spent Federal monies on the bridge but didn't... because it would be dumb.

And your Jimmy analogy is broken for the same reason: Jimmy -- and Palin -- was saying "Thanks but no thanks" to an offer that didn't exist. There was no requirement to spend those monies on the bridge. How the heck do you refuse -- and then take moral credit for! -- an offer that no longer exists? I might as well note that I said "Thanks, but no thanks" to sex with Cindy Crawford with equal "honesty": even if it were literally true that I uttered those words in her direction, it is a blatant lie that I refused anything from her because there was never an offer on the table.

[In fact, it's worse than that: Palin campaigned for the Bridge previously, as I was referring to above. Not only didn't she oppose the Bridge, she actively supported it! At least until she might have been forced to pay for it...]

[gwangung]

Given that the Wall Street Journal and Palin's constituents where the bridge was supposed to bedon't agree with Adam's interpretation of events, I don't think this is a fruitful discussion.

[Carleton Wu]

So, under your theory, Jimmy would be lying if he went and told his buddy, "I told my uncle 'thanks but not thanks' to a candy bar."

Dare In say- Bingo! If Jimmy were to tell his mother that statement in order to show how his uncle was trying to force candy on him, it would be a lie.

Thanks for playing.

[Donald Johnson]

"Coming from supporters of a campaign so devoted to "hope" or some sort of "new politics," this attack-dog mentality is a bit jarring."

And here I was earlier today saying over at TIO that concern trolls are relatively rare at ObiWi.

[Anarch]

And what on earth is your latest supposed to mean, Adam? No-one is claiming that Congress had actively tried to prevent Palin from building the Bridge and yes, if the Feds claimed that they had, they would be lying. By pretty much anyone's definition, your slight notwithstanding. This has nothing to do with the present situation, though, so I'm at a loss to think what you're trying to show here (except your l33t non sequiturs?).

[Jeff]

Jimmy, as you know, I was going to give you a dollar and make you spend it on a candy bar.

Wrong. Stevens and Palin asked for the candy bar. So right off, you've got the wrong set-up.

But instead I'm just going to give you a dollar, which you can spend it on whatever you want.

So there is no candy bar to say "No" to. Got it.

Jimmy: Thanks, I'll spend it on a book. As for the candy bar idea, I've got to say thanks but no thanks. If I decide that I want a candy bar, I'll save up my own money and buy one.

Jimmy wanted that candy bar. It was mean Unca Joe who wouldn't let him have it. For Jimmy to say "Thanks but no thanks" to Unca Joe is just being a brat.

But thanks for showing the lie!

--------------------

How do you think I feel?

The obvious answer is in violation of the posting rules.

[Adam]

Carleton,

Where did Palin say that Congress was "forcing" the Bridge upon Alaska?

Congress gave Alaska funds that could have been spent on the Bridge. Palin didn't spend on them on the Bridge.

Thanks for playing. Know hope!

[Carleton Wu]

"Dare I say it?" not sure what my fingers were thinking...

In other news:
At the time Obama was claiming to be against the war on Iraq he had already voted repeatedly to support it.

ie to fund the troops fighting the war. As Hillary has done. Was Hillary wrong? Is she also evil, soulless, and an amoral power-hungry monster?
[DaveC is prohibited from answering this rhetorical question. :) ]

If you can be honest enough to admit that Obama is a liar who will do and say anything to get elected you can gain some self respect.

Difference between ken and a piñata- ken does not burst open to reveal yummy candy when smacked around.
Advantage: piñata

[Bokonon]

Ken --

Nice attempt to turn this discussion into an issue on Obama's "selfishness" - is that the word which McCain's website urges people to use on blogs?

I see your claim that Obama is "just in this for himself". Oh yeah, and I see that your claim that you don't trust Obama because of this ... just something you feel in your gut.

Cleverly done. You win the booby prize for introducing the most bogus campaign memes in a single comment thread for today.

Now -- back to discussing the fact that Sarah Palin and John McCain are lying their asses off, to your face. For someone with such delicate sensibilities, I am surprised that you don't have any problem with that. Doesn't raise any trust or credibility issues with you, does it?

-- Bokonon

[Adam]

Anarch: "No-one is claiming that Congress had actively tried to prevent Palin from building the Bridge"

Gary: "Congress stopped it."

Anarch, you need to have a talk with Gary. Either you're wrong, or he's "No-one."

[Adam]

Incidentally, I just saw a news blurb about a mob of lawyers and opposition-researchers that currently is scouring Alaska for dirt on Palin.

Quick question: Is that the Hope Brigade, or the Change Cavalry?

[Carleton Wu]

Where did Palin say that Congress was "forcing" the Bridge upon Alaska?
Congress gave Alaska funds that could have been spent on the Bridge. Palin didn't spend on them on the Bridge.

They could've been spent on *anything*, as has already been pointed out to you. So, she didn't say 'no thanks' to Congress, she said 'thanks, I think Ill spend this on helicopter wolf hunting' or whatever she actually spent it on.
Or, contrawise, you think she could claim "I said thanks but no thanks to Congress when they offered to sterilize all Alaskan men". Do you think that she could make that claim & not be lying?

(Just this year, I got my income tax refund and said 'thanks but no thanks for those hookers, Uncle Sam!')

btw, you don't comment on your little scenario with Jimmy? bc that demonstrates the futility of your position- Jimmy's claim is a lie, and implies that his uncle tried to give him or buy him a candy bar. But that did not occur.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary: Can you point to a single instance when McCain or Palin said that Palin did not originally support the Bridge?"

Sure: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere... If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves."

Point to where they say or have said "I/Palin originally supported the Bridge, but changed my mind when Congress removed the earmark for it that I favored."

[Doug H. (Fausto no more)]

Any guesses as to how many Maverick Points(tm) Adam is earning today?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

I mentioned the Palin rally (McCain was involved somehow) a few hours ago in the Surface Politics thread.

At the very least, I think it's safe to say Palin doesn't mind playing fast and loose with the truth.

In addition to the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin charged Obama with being an earmark abuser -- a blanket accusation which the crowd of Ohioans ate up. (Meanwhile, I've seen allegations that Palin isn't clean on earmarks.)

It's one thing to lie or even fudge about your record. It's quite another to do the same thing about your opponent's.

Unfortunately, the average voter probably views much of this back-and-forth about the Bridge to Nowhere and earmarks as so much "noise."

The GOP machine is impressive: Any attempt at setting the Palin record straight is being shot down as attacks on her character or even sexist.

The fact that Palin doesn't mind distorting the facts one bit tells me she is indeed the future of the Republican Party.

[Anarch]

Adam: nice try, but no cigar. I said "actively prevent" for a reason; I'm sure someone of your prowess can discern the difference.

And btw, once, again, Palin did not "decline" to spend the money on the Bridge. It's a subtle point, but since your entire schtick has been to elide the these crucial distinctions, it should be noted explicitly once again that there was no offer to decline. She chose not to spend those monies on the Bridge after having a) supported the Bridge wholeheartedly until b) Congress didn't fund it completely. Which she has then proceeded to lie about, thus returning us to this thread.

[John]

Why are we focusing on "thanks, but no thanks," which is vague enough to allow our stupid trolls to distract us?

This quote is actually better for demonstrating the lie:

'If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'

This is precisely the opposite of what happened. Congress said that if Alaska wanted a bridge, it would have to build it on its own. Her whole statement is just blatantly false.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Donald Johnson: "And here I was earlier today saying over at TIO that concern trolls are relatively rare at ObiWi."

Me too.

Adam: "Is that the Hope Brigade, or the Change Cavalry?"

Is there a chance you might consider replacing "Hope" and "Change" with "Reality."

FWIW, the GE has drifted off from Reality to the point where it's making me wistful for the primary season.

[Carleton Wu]

Incidentally, I just saw a news blurb about a mob of lawyers and opposition-researchers that currently is scouring Alaska for dirt on Palin.

omg, they're doing oppo research on Palin? Sexism!

[Jeff]

Is that the Hope Brigade, or the Change Cavalry?

It's the Ex Post Facto McCain Vetting Team!

Aren't you tired of being WRONG? Just plain, flat out, stunningly WRONG?

[Carleton Wu]

Of course, McCain's people are just jealous that they didn't think of that first- going to Alaska and seeing what people there had to say about her. What a novel idea!

[Adam]

Gary,

It's hard to keep up with you today. First you said that McCain and Palin "disputed" whether Palin initially supported the bridge. Now you're complaining that they didn't expressly say that she originally supported the bridge.

I must say, that's a pretty novel definition of "disputed."

Carleton, I'm not sure which iteration of the Jimmy analogy you're referring to (the thread's getting a bit complex, and I'm having a hard enough time trying to keep up with the flurry of posts). You'll have to point it out, for me to respond to later tonight.

In any event, I feel pretty satisfied with where things have ended up. There seems to be no real dispute that there's anything factually inaccurate about Palin's actual words. You all seem to be complaining that she didn't say *enough*.

In short, she didn't "lie." You just think she didn't speak with enough candor or details. Again, if that's the new definition of "lie," then I wish Barak Obama would stop "lying" about his tax plan and offer more details.

[gwangung]

Incidentally, I just saw a news blurb about a mob of lawyers and opposition-researchers that currently is scouring Alaska for dirt on Palin.

I don't think this is remarkable. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature would do that.

[Anarch]

To continue with this sophomoric analogy:

Jimmy wanted that candy bar. It was mean Unca Joe who wouldn't let him have it. For Jimmy to say "Thanks but no thanks" to Unca Joe is just being a brat.

Not quite; once mean Unca Joe decided he'd only give Jimmy 75 cents of the dollar to buy that candy bar, Jimmy, being a petulant brat, said "Screw this, I'm not paying one red cent for a candy bar if Unca Joe won't give it to me for free. I'm going to buy other toys instead."

So no, Palin gets no points for any moral fiber on this issue at all... but I suppose she does get the salubrious designation of a cheapskate. With her money, at least; with other people's money, well, that's a whole 'nother story.

On preview: Oh good lord,

There seems to be no real dispute that there's anything factually inaccurate about Palin's actual words. You all seem to be complaining that she didn't say *enough*.

I rarely say this, but dude: learn to read.

[Bokonon]

Adam is probably ROLLING in Maverick Points from this and other forums ... particularly if he is also posting here as "Ken."

Maybe Adam has even collected enough to points to get that crown jewel of all McCain paraphenialia ... the McCain commemorative golf balls!

Unfortunately, Adam will have to play all golf alone, because of that awful hygiene problem trolls have. Phew!

Now, back to the issue about MCCAIN LYING HIS ASS OFF, and CHALLENGING PEOPLE TO CARE ABOUT IT.

Thanks for playing. Know hope!

[Lee]

What? Oppo research on Palin? Aren't we supposed to just wait and let her tell us what she wants us to know?

You know, in her own special, special way? Free of the encumbrances of fact or reality?

Won't the press jump in and expose the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Why are those oppo bastards bothering to check for themselves?

[Carleton Wu]

Carleton, I'm not sure which iteration of the Jimmy analogy you're referring to (the thread's getting a bit complex, and I'm having a hard enough time trying to keep up with the flurry of posts). You'll have to point it out, for me to respond to later tonight.

Jesus effing christ, there were only four posts with the word "jimmy" in them before my comment (other than the ones you wrote- presumably you're not confused by *those*). This is the lamest dodge I believe I've ever seen.
Ill point it out. Edit=>Find, then type in "jimmy". Find the *one* posted by me before my comment. That's the one you're looking for.

But heck, Im generous, Ill recap- if Jimmy claims that he said 'thanks but no thanks' to his uncle's offer of a candy bar, he is lying. It doesnt make sense to you only because Jimmy has no reason to tell this lie to his friend. So, imagine he tells this to his mother in order to accuse his uncle of trying to force candy on him. It is a *lie*, it is not true, it makes claims about the world that have the truth value of "not true". His uncle did not try to force a candy bar on him, so he cannot have declined such an offer. He declined *nothing*, so a claim of having declined something from his uncle is *not true*.

In any event, I feel pretty satisfied with where things have ended up. There seems to be no real dispute that there's anything factually inaccurate about Palin's actual words. You all seem to be complaining that she didn't say *enough*.
In short, she didn't "lie." You just think she didn't speak with enough candor or details.

I am also satisfied with where things have ended up.
Im glad that we could all agree that there's no question that she lied through her lying teeth. There seems to be no dispute that she could not have said 'no thanks' to Congress when she accepted the money and Congress was not telling her what to do with it. That she did not decline anything from Congress at all.
In short, she's a lying liar; you just think that if you paraphrase the statement to remove the world "no thanks" and "Congress" that it's true.

[ericblair]

Well, we learned two things today: the McCain trolls don't actually understand what an earmark is, and doing oppo research is Evil. Guess those McCain staffers following Obama around are just my overactive imagination. Anybody wanna guess that the Approved Message of the Day is tomorrow? I might wanna go for that McCain coffee mug myself.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Adam: "You just think she didn't speak with enough candor or details."

Does that mean you don't expect "candor" or "details" for your President?

If so, you must think George W. Bush has done a terrific job.

[Ugh]

And the Sarah Palin distraction continues to be an epic success for McCain.

[dnfree]

The bridge to nowhere is not the only claim that Palin and McCain are wording so carefully that the normal person's interpretation will be counter to the facts.

How about the plane? She says "I put it up on eBay!" Apparently, yes, she did, but it didn't SELL on eBay. (It sold through a broker for a loss.) However, you are meant to think that it did. In fact, John McCain initially didn't get the careful distinction and said she had sold it on eBay for a profit.

Even if you could carefully parse someone's words and say they are telling the truth, it certainly isn't "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth".

Some of the people posting here can say "She told the truth!", but you certainly can't say "She's an honest person" based on these statements. And yet that's the persona she's trying to present--just a down-to-earth, honest person.

[ericblair]

And the Sarah Palin distraction continues to be an epic success for McCain.

I don't think so: this is sort of like distracting the traffic cop from writing you a speeding ticket by punching him in the nose. Yes, you've deflected the original issue for a bit, but you're not exactly better off.

McCain picked this trainwreck. This was his first real major executive decision. If and when she crashes and burns hard, he's done. There will be no replacements.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Ugh: "And the Sarah Palin distraction continues to be an epic success for McCain."

They say sarcasm only works if you can see the truth in it.

Alas, is Palin today's Hot Thing or does she have legs?

If McCain loses, it's curtains for him, my friends. But Palin -- who has the devotion of the right and the Evangelicals -- is here to stay.

Meanwhile, the Palin pick was a stroke of genius by someone -- and certainly not McCain, who allegedly wanted Ridge or Lieberman.

Let's face it: She has been a game-changer. No other pick could have revived McCain's campaign or given him this kind of bounce in the polls.

[Gary Farber]

"...particularly if he is also posting here as 'Ken.'"

Definitely not; wholly different styles.

Adam isn't playing in more good faith than "ken." He's just, well, it's difficult to characterize ken without violating the posting rules as regards what might be considered abuse. It likely wouldn't cross the line if I observed that ken isn't the brightest candle on the cake.

Ken has never been more than a troll, and should be ignored. At this point, Adam shows no signs of being other than a smarter troll.

Bottom line for Adam is that he's here to say what it takes to justify Palin and McCain.

Bored, now.

DNFFTs.

[Jeff]

There seems to be no real dispute that there's anything factually inaccurate about Palin's actual words.

Fixed!

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"How about the plane?"

How about the governor's chef?

[Phil]

Well, hey, at least under our McCain/Palin overlords, we can look forward to more politicization of the military.

[Tony P.]

Folks, it's time for Sarah Palin to become a distraction to the Republican base.

The conventional wisdom of the moment is that a lot of people who were lukewarm to McCain are now enthusiastic about the McCain-Palin ticket. McCain done good! He picked a Christian hockey mom!! Finally, one of their very own on a national ticket!!!

So let's ask those Palin enthusiasts: how much attention do you think a President McCain will actually pay to a Vice President Palin, if they win? What do you think he will actually take her advice about, when he has a federal government to run?

--TP

[hilzoy]

"There seems to be no real dispute that there's anything factually inaccurate about Palin's actual words."

Obviously, Palin's words are not "factually accurate", in that unless there was an address by her to Congress that I've missed out on, she did not literally say "thanks but no thanks" to Congress. That's obvious, and also besides the point: no one would mind if Congress had offered the money and she had declined it, without saying it in those words, and had described that as saying "thanks but no thanks."

But what we keep saying is: Congress did not offer her the money to build the bridge. It offered her unrestricted funds, which she accepted. Moreover, while campaigning she said she would try to get those funds, and supported Congress giving them. And she only changed her mind because they didn't give her all the money she wanted.

The question is not whether her words are "factually accurate". Of course they aren't, but not in a way that's necessarily problematic. The question is, is there anything she did do that could plausibly be construed as "saying thanks but no thanks"? It would have to be (a) an offer that Congress made, which (b) she declined.

There is no such offer of a bridge, or the funding for it.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Tony P raises some good points. But as I see it, McCain will be content on letting Palin handle the domestic side -- and he'll be content with the Commander-in-Chief role.

[jesurgislac]

ericblair: McCain picked this trainwreck. This was his first real major executive decision. If and when she crashes and burns hard, he's done. There will be no replacements.

I was betting on September 12th, when Palin will have provided a fortnight's distraction but before the really nasty stories about her antics in Alaska get out.

*makes popcorn*

[The Crafty Trilobite]

The ebay thing is at most mildly misleading. She DID put it up on ebay, it's not her fault it didn't find a buyer. Good gesture, good joke, good try, she never claimed success.

I heard a rumor, which I do not remotely have the interest in tracking down, that the Alaska Legislature had already cut the funding for the plane's fuel & maintenance, so she kinda had to sell it. If that's the case, she still didn't quite lie, but she misled in that she deliberately implied that she, not her legislature, made that decision.

[Gary Farber]

"Good gesture, good joke, good try, she never claimed success."

John McCain:

As he launched his new ethics and reform campaign for the White House in Cedarburg, Wis., Friday morning, John McCain told his favorite anti-corruption story about his new running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "You know what I enjoyed the most, she took the luxury jet bought by her predecessor and sold it on eBay," he said. "And made a profit."

[JoshA]

Simpsons episode: Mr. Plow.

Homer (to Ned): Forget it, pal. I don't need your phoney baloney job. I'll take your money, but I'm not gonna plow your driveway!

Palin (to Congress): I've decided not to build the bridge...I still get the money, right?

[liberal japonicus]

Gary, that always happens when people with no sense of humor try to retell a joke.

MaCain: Oh and you gotta hear this other line Sarah had the other day...

Probably the first time the Presidential candidate has become the surrogate for the VP candidate.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

If I were a Republican, I would find Palin's story appealing enough: Former beauty queen turned sportscaster marries her high school sweetheart. Becomes mayor of her hometown, then governor, fights the old-boy network in getting there. Has five kids in what is a modern-day all-American family, raising them in America's Last Frontier.

What's not to like?

Then you add in all of the embellishments, and it's no wonder they are going ga-ga over Palin. This was a party without a star.

It helps that Palin is a good and confident communicator with, and this hurts a little to say, charisma.

As miserable as Republicans must have been in the winter and spring -- when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were getting all the attention -- that's how exhuberant they are now.

You just didn't see excited, elbow-to-elbow crowds for McCain like the one they had in Ohio today pre-Palin. Hillary's crowds used to be filled with middle-aged and older women; Palin's crowds look much younger, filled with chanting mothers and daughters.

So they've definitely tapped into something.

The good news if you are a Democrat is that 56 days in a presidential campaign is a lifetime and I don't think the Palin wave alone is enough to ride into the White House.

They say it every four years, but the Debates really do seem like they could be Decisive this time.