Prosecute the torture.

September 13, 2008

More McCain Sleaze

The McCain campaign released more sleaze this week, including this ad (approved by the formerly honorable John McCain):

Factcheck.org has an analysis out that takes a look at each part of the ad ("Good-looking", "Marching orders" and "Disrespectful") and found each to be, well, "particularly egregious" and:
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new TV ad that distorts quotes from the Obama campaign. It takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin.
The "good looking" part is from this interview with Joe Biden, who's quoted by ABC News as saying this:

"From our perspective the whole deal is how does the government help you get back up without getting in the way?" Biden asked. "There's a gigantic - gigantic - difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent. And that is that - "

The crowd laughed.

"Well there's obvious differences," Biden said, beginning to ham it up. "She's good looking," he said, laughing.

For the humor-challenged out there, Joe Biden was actually saying two things when he pointed out the one obvious difference between he and Palin: She's good looking and he isn't. Well THAT'S certainly disrespectful.

By the way, the same ABC piece has Rush Limbaugh himself call Palin "a babe."

The "Marching orders" part comes from this article at The Politico:

“Right down the line,” he said. “She tried to attack Obama by saying he had no significant legislative accomplishments — maybe that’s what she was told — but she should talk to Sen. Lugar, talk to Sen. Coburn, talk to people across the aisle in Illinois where he passed dozens of major laws to expand health care reform welfare, reduce taxes on working families. So I think she had an assignment and she went out and she discharged it.” [emphasis added]

Then there the charge that Obama is being disrespectful for calling Sarah Palin a liar.

But, she is. She supported the so-called "bridge to nowhere" (and campaigned on it) before Congress pulled the plug on the funding. Factcheck.org even says so:
Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.
So what's disrespectful there?

22 comments:

John K. said...

John K: Ah, the formerly honorable McCain. So that is how Olbermouth and his minions get around the fact that they once praised McCain. Not clever enough though. Go back into the archives of this blog and you will find that I, yes me, predicted that about this time you would all turn on McCain and villify him. And, as usual, you will find I am right. Which only makes you hypocrites.

John K. said...

John K: You are belittling Palin. Have since she was selected as the VP candidate. But you have to. Just like Justice Thomas. She has done exactly what the feminist and NOW movement said to do. In the manner in which they templated. And she has succeeded. Except she is a pro life feminist. And she did it, like Thomas, without kowtowing to the liberals. And that is a threat the left cannot tolerate. Hence, like Karl Rove, she will be hunted down to the ends of the Earth and destroyed simply for the crime of standing up to liberals.

John K. said...

John K: What you left wingers think is that you will do Palin what Hussein Obama did to jack Ryanin 2004. Release his divorce court proceedings. Talk about smear and sleaze. Palin is way too tough for that. Besides, Palin has us behind her. For instance, both Biden and Obama voted for funding the bridge twice, Palin cast no votes for the bridge. We got her back. LMAO try harder.

John K. said...

John K: Once again, liberal hypocracy, Biden, over a 10 year period managed to average $369 dollars in charitable contributions. LOL LOL LOL $369 a year, LOL LOL LMAO Big spending liberal. LOL

dayvoe said...

Ladies and Gentlemen;

This is how John K shows us he knows he's lost the argument.

He changes the subject.

LMAO

I win!

John K. said...

John K: Can't handle the sleaze of Hussein Obama politics eh? I agree Hussein Obama's method of handling his opponent Jack Ryan was sleazy. But no different than how he handles Palin. This Obama guy and his Rezko pals have to be stopped. We cant' let America deteriorate into Olbermouth talking points.

John K. said...

John K: Time for the left to step up and give to charities. Reach into those pockets liberals. Surely you can give more than $369 dollars a year.

billrott said...

John K,

The candidate running is John McCain, not Sarah Palin. Palin was a bad pick for vice president and will probably doom the party. With that point made, she is not the candidate.

Music Wench said...

I understand that both sides tend to exaggerate the truth a little in campaigning. But the Republicans have sunk to a new low. Do they think people won't find the truth which is readily out there? Apparently so.

If they would just stay on topic it would be so much helpful. I guess when you have nothing new to offer, you have to just be nasty, mean spirited and just lie through your teeth, hoping if you repeat something over and over again enough times, it will be seen as the truth.

I don't blame them, really. It worked with WMDs in Iraq, after all.

Bob said...

JohnKook still hasn't realized that people just don't care about his ridiculous commentary.
--
LMAO try harder.

---
---
billrott,
firstly I don't support or like Palin, but I believe that Palin was a superb choice by the republican party.
-She is certainly underqualified, especially when compared to other female republican options.
-She is extremely controversial.
-She supports extreme conservative values.
*All this has kept nearly all media attention away from McCain.*
Republicans are playing a popularity campaign.
Democrats are playing a political campaign.
(I think Palin is a fuckin' nutjob. I've known more compulsive lying women than men (4:1). Palin lies. And because of it, she's given very few interviews.)

The Republicans want the presidency for financial reasons.
The Democrats want it for humanitarian improvement.

Bob said...

Do I know republicans or what? LOL LOL

C.H. said...

"The Democrats want it for humanitarian improvement."

That's a laugh. I think that four years of calling for withdrawal from Iraq, belittling the Iraqi people, and exploiting negative news is about as anti-humanitarian as it can get.

John K. said...

John K: Thanks for surrendering Billrott. I knew you would come around to my way of thinking.

John K. said...

John K: So what's the deal here left wing kooks. Going to anty up more than Biden and his $369 dollars for charity?

Bob said...

CH/JohnK. Fuck off. You're the same person.

Bob said...

ch.
why don't you tell me what the Iraq war is about?
Genocide? Saddam's dead now. He pushed genocide.
The war is about who's controlling oil. It's about money.
I have yet to see Bin Laden's head on a plate.
What, is Iraq a terrorist warehouse? Do terrorists stay there and nowhere else?
Iraq is not the US. It's another country. So they're under 'tyranny' as you put it, so are a lot of countries.

Why is the Iraq War continuing?
Why does McCain not even pause when he says it doesn't matter if it takes 100 years?
100 years? WTF! Iraq has been at war for 2000 years. We may have some technology, but they have money & experience.
I think North Korea and China pose more worry than Iraq.

John K. said...

John K: Well if we acted agressively towards N. Korea or China, you left wing cowards would get Seymour Hersch on it and demand we stop. So to bring up those two countries shows how the left just wants to whine. No comparison there. And if you lefties have not figured out Iraq yet, and are still defending Al Queda, then it shows how sick you are. We lured Al Queda into Iraq and fought them on ground of our choosing. Hussein Obama would prefer we sue. And some lefties think Al Queda will never cross our border and fight us here. Geeze it is tiring explaining this. We beat Al Queda and set them back. To elect Hussein Obama, a friend of Hamas, would just set the war back. We ain't going to do that. No we won't.

John K. said...

John K: You lefties going to put some pressure on Rep. Rangel to pay his back taxes? Its not like he hasn't read the code or anything. Maybe Biden can contribute $369 dollars toward the tax due. LMAO

EdHeath said...

CH said: ""The Democrats want it for humanitarian improvement."

That's a laugh. I think that four years of calling for withdrawal from Iraq, belittling the Iraqi people, and exploiting negative news is about as anti-humanitarian as it can get."

Well, there are other things in the world besides Iraq, nor was the post you quoted from about Iraq. We could talk about Katrina, tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich, sex, drugs and corruption at the Interior Department or lack of oversight of financial institutions percipitating a financial crisis that threatens to envelope the world.

But lets talk about Iraq. How is it humanitarian to invade a country that didn't threaten us or have anything to do with 9/11? How is it humanitarian to kill or allow to be killed thousands of their civilians? How is it humanitarian to thrash their infrastructure, throw away millions that is supposed to used to rebuild that infrastructure, and impose upon them a government made up of the tribal leaders who weren't killed or kidnapped in the insurgency we said would not occur.

You say the democrats belittle the Iraqi people. I say prove it, and anyway, that's got to be better than killing them.

And by the way, the topic of the post was whether McCain was running a negative ad. And you took up the reigns from John K and tried to distract the topic.

billrott said...

John K,

From your posts, I can say I am no where near our line of thinking. I said weeks ago and say today that Palin was an extremely bad choice that will only hurt the Republican Party.

I am voting for Obama, donating to Obama, and campaigning for Obama. Normally, I just stop at voting, but this election is too important. In the past, you at least had both sides put up qualified individuals, so that who ever won, we knew the country would be ok. Not this time though.

Now back to Palin. She is going to be the death of the modern Republican Party. She appears to be an ultra-christian conservative, and while our nation is majority christian, our nation is not majority the republican's brand of Christianity.

With this pick, McCain has put front and center the most extreme views of his party. As such, I think the damage done here will last for years, and the Republican leadership has no one to blame except themselves for they endorsed this decision at their convention.

Looking forward to the debates.

Oh and once again, the election is between McCain and Obama. Obama is the better choice.

Gewurztraminer said...

At 3:34 PM, Bob said...
billrott,
firstly I don't support or like Palin, but I believe that Palin was a superb choice by the republican party.
-She is certainly underqualified, especially when compared to other female republican options.
-She is extremely controversial.
-She supports extreme conservative values.
*All this has kept nearly all media attention away from McCain.*
Republicans are playing a popularity campaign.
Democrats are playing a political campaign.
(I think Palin is a fuckin' nutjob. I've known more compulsive lying women than men (4:1). Palin lies. And because of it, she's given very few interviews.)

The Republicans want the presidency for financial reasons.
The Democrats want it for humanitarian improvement.

Bob..You sir provide strong evidence that we often fear what we don't understand.
I also didn't realize that fecal matter can carry synaptic impulses otherwise you would not have been able to type your empty diatribe.

Education is the answer to the world in turmoil and it's never too late for you.

jaywillie said...

I love this...John tries to blame Obama for Jack Ryan shopping his wife around for sexual thrills.

Pathetic.