I think 2008 will go down as the election where levels of dishonesty became communication strategies.  With the media and the blogosphere all atwitter -- it would seem that the 95% fabrication can skim by pretty much unchallenged.  I still believe that when this election is wrtten about that coverage of what was true or false will have had a diminishing effect on the voter.

Not to mention, John McCain has flip flopped so many times on so many different issues that is possible to claim he is both for and against something in the same breath - which McCain does frequently. So the question becomes do you take him at his current word, when he has a particular agenda to make himself seem more moderate than he actually is; or do you take at him at his actual voting record and his comments during periods of time when he wasn't trying to be something he's not.

As others, including Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, have shown John McCain is trying to run the same campaign Bush ran in 2000, when he presented himself as much more moderate than he actually is - he has governed from a radical right position when he campaigned as a moderate compassionate conservative. McCain is absolutely trying to do the same thing.

Obama's ads pointing out this are well within the factual realm.

"I can't fathom what problem Mike, who's a good reporter, could possibly have with Obama's ad on Social Security."

Mike's problem is that he's not a good reporter.  Mac says it, he believes it.

Whatever one's opinion of Mike's reporting (I happen to like it, or used to) he seems dyspeptic, his once playful skepticism turning cynical, even dark at times. I tend to psychologize, sometimes inappropriately, so I beg off "explaining" but it's evident he's not been his usual self for a while.

Hey Obama, You Know It's OK To Say That McCain's A Republican, Don't You? by The Editors

Obama  Spanish-language television ad is race baiting. It's not the same as misleading  ad about education spending.  We don't need openly racist President. We can do better.

Sí, los amigos Repúblicanos de John McCain tienan dos caras! Es verdad!

I don't know if the Limbaugh quotes were taken out of context or not, but short of someone physically harming that bastard (or some other obvious violation of law), he deserves whatever comes at him. The man has said so many hateful (and ignorant) things over the years that he deserves little to no compassion or protection -- he deserves to be hit with the same things he hits other people with. No tears should be shed over Limbaugh

Other than the written quotes, which I can't judge the honesty of, I thought the ad was quite straightforward. Yes, it is true that McCain's Republican friends demonize Latno immigrants and Latinos in general while they are at it. And yes, they come to Latinos and ask for their votes. Ask ex-CA governor Pete Wilson if the demonization of Latino immigrants was a good idea for the California Republican party. It does not take a genius to see how much of the anti-illegal immigrant talk is really anti-immigrant talk (not all, but a lot), and how much also contains contempt for the brown-skinned immigrants themselves.

McCain himself has not done this, to my knowledge, but he has sucked up to people who have. So yes, the ad is a bit below the belt, and it is fair to criticize it on that grounds, but it is also true that McCain's political party is in fact described accurately in the ad. My conclusion: a blow below the belt, but just below, and not even remotely like the Obama wants to teach kindergarteners about sex ad.

Not even remotely "race baiting" or "openly racist". Try again, Jacob.

JEFF FREY,

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

"Yes, it is true that McCain's Republican friends demonize Latno immigrants and Latinos in general"

Yes, it is true that Obama's pastors and friends  demonize white people, hate Jews ans so on..

" not even remotely like the Obama wants to teach kindergarteners about sex ad."

He does.  there is no question about it.

The old law read:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.

Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

The wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.

Jacob - its been a long time since I"ve read your ignoramous rantings and the rare times that I do, you confirm your idiocy to me every time.

It is the responsibility of every pre and kindegarden teacher to teach children about inappropriate touching, that their bodies and space around them belong to them.  It is irresponsible not to, and every teacher I have ever spoken to or worked with on these delicate but necessary issues very much appreciate learning the skills on how to do this responsibly, with scientific back-up. It is childish to make this in to a poltical issue.  Such a pathetic sign of desperation.

Sexual health is physical health. Not that you care, but here goes: each age group is taught the appropriate material for their cognitive and physical development.  Reams and reams of research proves the efficacy of this comprehensive approach, often beginning in pre school rather than kindergarden.  

These programs are a matter of public health in a civilized mature society, of which you don't seem to know much about, let alone raising kids these days.  Have the slightest idea what in the hell you are talking about before you use whatever you have at hand in your obsessive Obama bashing.  No wonder you love Palin - you have that love of ignorance in common.

Grow up.

Wandreycer1,

I don't argue with you. You've explained the Obama's position well. However, bitter clinging to guns and religion small town voters don't like some of Obama's views. Obama doesn't want to talk about his sex-ed views. He wants to talk about big issues such as  McCain's houses and McCain's  computer skills.  McCain wants to distract voters from his computer skills  by talking about Obama's view about  sex-ed.   Look, politics isn't bean bag. Gro.w up

Jacob, I call Obama's crazy pastor with Palin's carazy pastor and raise you Tom Tancredo.

In my mind, it comes down to this.  Which of these two candidates is more likely to be straight with the American people when it comes to policy; or which one is more likely to say something like, "yellow Cake" or "Aluminum Tubes" to avoid a legitimate debate on an issue.  Which one will attempt to solve our problems with idealogy, like the new medicarre prescritpion drug plans, and fudge the numbers so we don't know the real cost?  My instincts are the McCain is more likely to follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush, because he is already doing that.

Nusholtz,

In my mind, it comes down to this. You are a liberal democrat. You are going to vote for a liberal democrat no matter how racist, mediocre, inexperienced and corrupt he is.

Jacobt1

I see that you require very little information to form an opinion.  In your fashion, I would say that Mr. McCain will destroy the country with tax cuts and war.  The tax cuts will destroy the country because the national debt will put enormous pressure on the Internal Revenue to find revenue at the bottom, by seizing assets whenever possible (this happened in 1980 under Reagan) and also seizing the assets of spouses and other third parties, such as innocent investors,  who do not owe taxes but who happen to own property with delinquent taxpayers (taking property from third parties has now undergone a huge increase in the courts under your current president).  This is not to mention what happens during audits of taxpayers, where low tax rates and the national debt put agents under pressure to find revenue in any way they can. The Tax Court and Federal Courts will accomodate this need.  I can tell you that the phenomena of a need for revenue eroding the rights of individuals was a cause of the signing of the Magna Charta, a cause of the American Revolution and it is happening again right now.   So let's cut taxes irresponsibly and take our rights too; we can fight a war without those rights.

Nusholtz,

McCain can't cut taxes. He'll have a Democratic congress. Yes, McCain save this country from imminent defeat in Iraq, while Obama advocated the surrender. If you think that Obama was correct, vote for Obama.

Jacobt1

  As for winning the war, China is making deals to develop the Ahdab oil filed.  See here:  

news.yahoo.com/.../china_iraq_oil

We're probably going to spend at least 1 trillion in Iraq and China gets the prize.  Maybe you call that winning, but it certainly makes us look stupid.  I would think winning would involve some sort of reciprocation.  Mr. McCain equates winning with staying.  I equate winning with leaving.  We're better off trying to leave than trying to stay and I'm sure the Iraqi's see it that way too.  You can't seriously believe we are better off because we invaded Iraq, but if you do, then vote for McCain and enjoy the erosion of your rights.

Nusholtz,

No Oil for Blood

Thanks to three American senators, China will be pumping Iraqi oil.

Why, after all the assistance we've given to Iraq over the past five years, was the first major Iraqi oil deal signed with China and not with an American or even a western company? The answer is, in part, because three Democratic senators intervened in Iraqi domestic politics earlier this year to prevent Iraq from signing short-term agreements with Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, Chevron, and BP.

The Iraqi government was poised to sign no-bid contracts with those firms this summer to help make immediate and needed improvements in Iraq's oil infrastructure. The result would have been significant foreign investment in Iraq, an expansion of Iraqi government revenues, and an increase in the global supply of oil. One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it. Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking her "to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq." The Bush administration wisely refused to do so, but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.

Nor is it entirely clear what the senators' motivations were. Their release (available along with their letter to Secretary Rice at the New York Observer quoted Senator McCaskill as follows: "'It's bad enough that we have no-bid contracts being awarded for work in Iraq. It's bad enough that the big oil companies continue to receive government handouts while they post record breaking profits. But now the most profitable companies in the universe--America's biggest oil companies--stand to reap the rewards of this no-bid contract on top of it all,' McCaskill said. 'It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect these dots--big oil is running Washington and now they're running Baghdad. There is no reason under the sun not to halt these agreements until we get revenue sharing in place,' McCaskill said." So was this about what's best for Iraq and American interests there or about nailing "big oil" in an election year?

Either way, like Barack Obama's asking the Iraqi foreign minister to hold off on a strategic framework agreement until after the American election, it was nothing but harmful to American interests and our prospects in Iraq.

www.weeklystandard.com/.../574iglgp.asp

Jacobt1

I take it then that you agree with Mr. Obama that the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake because "we broke it and we own it."  Mr. McCain is more of the same.

Nusholtz,

I don't know if the liberation of Iraq was a mistake. To answer this question we need to compare with the most like alternative. Describe me how Iraq would look like today if Iraq was not liberated?

Would Saddam be still in power? Would US continues to enforce no fly-zone? Would sanctions and food for oil corruption continue?

Jacobt1

Yes, I agree.  We must look at alternatives.  The question is not what would happen in Iraq, but what would have happened in regard to worldwide terrorism, particularly Al Qaeda, if we had not invaded Iraq.   Aside from dropping the ball in Afganistan and letting Bin Laden get a foothold in Pakistan, the actual damage has been far worse.  In Bob Woodward's 1987 book "Veil: The Secret Wars of the C.I.A., 1981-1987" it is explained how when a country conducts its own response to local terrorist organizations, it is generally effective, but when we invade another country for the same purpose, we are rarely successful.  That means, to succeed against terrorism, we need strong alliances.  We lost those alliances that could have been obtained when the world recognized our cause after 9/11 by invading Iraq, especially with the use of torture and making a general mess of things.  Thanks to Iraq, general populations have been advised to despise us and this is a problem for us in Pakistan.  Adding to this is the fact that our President was wrong about almost everything as a reason for going into Iraq.  This is why Mr. Obama strikes me as taking the correct and only path on the issue of terrorism, by building alliances.  Is it important to seek retribution against the man who plotted the deaths of nearly 3,000 in the World Trade Center?  I think it is.  You are asking me about the virtue of taking out Saddam Hussein and I am telling you that invading Iraq is the reason we have not been able to take out Osama Bin Laden who murdered our citizens.  Now, why do you think Mr. Obama is a racist?

As a general point, I not only think that Obama very much understands the necessity of fighting terrorism, but I also believe that Obama has a better grasp of HOW to fight terror in the 21st century.

"The question is not what would happen in Iraq"

This is question. Without answering this question you can't tell if Iraq war was a mistake.

" Adding to this is the fact that our President was wrong about almost everything as a reason for going into Iraq"

You are wrong.  Our President was wrong about almost everything as a JUSTIFICATION for going into Iraq. The reason  to go to war was unsustainably of the status quo in Iraq.

The war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq can plausibly be described as a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda. But the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq cannot possibly be accurately described as a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda.

And make no mistake: Al Qaeda’s manpower and resources have been thoroughly degraded from its disastrous fight with Americans and Iraqis, especially in Anbar Province which was briefly established as Al Qaeda’s “capital” of the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq.”

Last summer I met with U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman in Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province and also what until 2007 was Al Qaeda’s key stronghold.

“What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?” I asked him.

“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”

Al Qaeda lost in Iraq partly because American soldiers and Marines outsmarted and outfought them, but also, just as importantly, because the Iraqi people themselves rose up in resistance.

Iraqis aren’t the only ones who have soured on Al Qaeda lately.

Last year the Pew Research Center surveyed Muslims in 16 different countries. Support for suicide bombers has declined in nearly every country that was also surveyed in 2002, and the decline is dramatic almost everywhere. The only Muslim communities surveyed where support for suicide bombers remains at greater than 50 percent are, unsurprisingly, the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

The United States could not have prudently allowed itself to yield the field to Al Qaeda in either Iraq or Afghanistan by being wholly distracted from one or the other. Both fronts were crucial for Al Qaeda, which means both were crucial for the United States. It doesn’t matter if we like the fact that we have been embroiled in a hot war with Al Qaeda in two countries at once. That’s just how it is.

If Al Qaeda hadn’t poured all those resources into Iraq, they likely would have poured them into Afghanistan. And the U.S. very well may have lost the war by this time. Afghanistan, at the very least, would be in much worse shape than it is. And it’s not looking good even now. Independent foreign correspondent Michael Yon, who is hardly known as a pessimistic defeatist, still insists we’re losing the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the U.S. has all but won the war in Iraq even though Iraq was in much worse shape recently and the war there did not last as long. Iraq, as it turned out, was an easier place to fight Al Qaeda and other sundry insurgent and terrorist groups than Afghanistan.

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../31621

As usual, Jacob has nothing whatever to say for himself, so he copy-pastes Commentary and Weekly Standard articles here.

IF I wanted to read either of those rags, I would read them there, not here.  The purpose of Talkbalk is not to have duelling copy-paste of liberal and conservative blogs - we can all read them.  It is to exchange our OWN views.  

In any event, this, in logic, is called the "logical fallacy of authority": that if the National Review says it, it must be true.  Well, it ain't.  Crap is still crap, whether the Weekly Standard publishes it or Jacob regurgitates it.

"IF I wanted to read either of those rags"

Why don't you want to read anyting that that challenges your dogmatic opinions?

"most dishonest of all, McCain repeatedly says that Obama plans higher taxes on the middle class, which is falsemost dishonest of all, McCain repeatedly says that Obama plans higher taxes on the middle class, which is false"

You're forgetting that the middle class goes up to $5 mil per year these days.

jacobtl:  "Last summer I met with U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman in Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province and also what until 2007 was Al Qaeda’s key stronghold."

Who are you?  And why was LTC Silverman meeting with you?

Jacobt1

I find your argument about the damage we have done to Al Qaeda unconvincing for two reasons.  First, it could easily be made by Al Qaeda of us and, secondly, it claims victory in the middle of a confict with no end in sight.  The simple fact is that Osama Bin Laden is laughing at the great Americans who can do nothing to him.  He can attack us on our own soil.  He can have his followers draw us into fights in Iraq and leave at will and start up in Afganistan and Pakistan  He is playing us because we were foolish enough to invade Iraq before dealing with him.   You probably consider the surge a success because it resulted in us staying there when the alternative was trying to get out.  

In this article Fareed Zakaria describes how terrorist attacks are sharply down over the last five years.

www.newsweek.com/.../138508

Here's an excerpt:

The Simon Fraser study notes that the decline in terrorism appears to be caused by many factors, among them successful counterterrorism operations in dozens of countries and infighting among terror groups. But the most significant, in the study's view, is the "extraordinary drop in support for Islamist terror organizations in the Muslim world over the past five years." These are largely self-inflicted wounds. The more people are exposed to the jihadists' tactics and world view, the less they support them. An ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan in 2007 showed support for the jihadist militants in the country to be 1 percent. In Pakistan's North-West Frontier province, where Al Qaeda has bases, support for Osama bin Laden plummeted from 70 percent in August 2007 to 4 percent in January 2008. That dramatic drop was probably a reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but it points to a general trend in Pakistan over the past five years. With every new terrorist attack, public support for jihad falls. "This pattern is repeated in country after country in the Muslim world," writes Mack. "Its strategic implications are critically important because historical evidence suggests that terrorist campaigns that lose public support will sooner or later be abandoned or defeated."

So much for the idea that the war in Iraq has caused terrorism to increase.

jacobt: let me get this straight.  A couple of guys, who had no power or influence over a process, wrote a "letter" to the people who were in charge of a process and were summarily ignored.  And this led to a "hooraw" in the Iraqi (!) media, leading the Iraqis to cancel a contract the were "on the cusp" of awarding to the US  and gave the whole thing to the Chinese.  Really?  Talk about confirmation bias!  

Does that rather convoluted story sound more plausible than the idea that the Iraqi government just wants the US out since our presence erodes their credibility?  Or that this isn't just a bargaining posture?  Or that this isn't pay-off for the Chinese soft economic approach which is markedly absent of macho chest pounding?

I know that the idea that the Iraqis aren't going to be eternally grateful is unpleasant but it was imminantly predictable.

Bulbman1066

If I understand your excerpt correctly, terrorism cured itself and we did not need to invade Iraq for that purpose.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is whether the invasion of Iraq prevented us from capturing Bin Laden, who murdered nearly 3,000 New York residents and deserves our retribution.  The war prevented and prevents his capture in two ways.  First, it diverted our resources and secondly, it alienated the populations whose help we badly need, such as in Pakistan.   Who would help us when we are known as brutish war mongers who hold and torture the innocent?  That is why the war was a mistake.  The proof is in the fact that Bin Ladin roams free periodically distributing his home videos on American television.

I'm going to read this article shortly; but would it be crazy to assume that "the difference" is that Obama's lying is excusable and McCain's is eeeeeeeeeevil?  And that various logical acrobatics and wild rationalizations will put put forth in a lengthy attempt to prove it?

Let's find out!