In a new ad starring John Cusack, MoveOn tells more lies about John McCain.
It lies by saying that he "supports keeping troops in harm's way in Iraq," when, in fact, his main goal is to get them OUT of harm's way, but doing so in a way that doesn't harm our national security. And if I am not mistaken, that's the same goal as Obama.
It lies through innuendo by saying McCain opposes a bill to "support [the troops] when they return home," when, in fact, the bill in question is simply a bad, stupid, wasteful bill, and McCain has given more support to vets than Obama and Hillary put together. By far.
It lies when it says McCain's "top advisors are linked to war profiteers." It's simply false.
It lies when it says McCain "opposed health care for uninsured children last year." It never happened. He opposed the EXPANSION of ONE particular program for PAYING for health care for uninsured children. To characterize this as opposing "health care for uninsured children" is a lie, as he in fact SUPPORTED the bill that extended the program.
The only true claim it made is that McCain supports the OPTIONAL (they forgot that word) privatization of Social Security, which is a good thing considering that within the next decade it will begin taking in less than it puts out, which will mean not only a likely prospect of Social Security failure to meet its obligations in another 30 years, but also that we will have increasing annual budget obligations, as no more money from the Trust Fund will be going into the General Fund, and more money will be going out of the General Fund to pay back bonds to the Trust Fund. And optional privatization is one positive step toward fixing that problem in the long run.
I know it is not a surprise when MoveOn lies. It's expected, really. But it's worth noting, I think.
If you take MoveOn's Bush-McCain challenge, it doesn't lie so much as make McCain look GOOD. It shows that he correctly anticipated we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq (although it leaves out the part where McCain said we needed more troops than the Bush adminsitration sent, which was, of course, the real problem with the long-term effectiveness of our invasion); how he supports the Second Amendment; how he opposes the clearly legally incorrect Roe v. Wade.
The fourth question doesn't make McCain look good exactly, unless, of course, you know about Obama: yes, McCain is not an expert economist. Duh. He's not going to pretend to be. But he knows a lot more about the economy than Obama does, and probably ever will.
The fifth question is odd. It says Bush promised bipartisanship cooperation, but says nothing about McCain at all, perhaps attempting to imply McCain would not have such a record as President. The fact is, of course, that McCain has one of the best records of bipartisanship in the Senate.
Then if you continue on (providing your e-mail address, mine is barry.hussein@obama.com), it's more of the same: making McCain look good (privatizing Social Security).
The best though is when they ask, "Who [Bush, McCain, or Both] said the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a 'second job' and skip their vacations?" McCain did. And I can't see how it is a bad thing to tell people who are behind on their own willingly accepted financial obligations to not spend money on luxury items, and to try to make more money. This is what my parents did. It's probably what your parents did. It's what I would think everyone should do. Apparently, though, MoveOn thinks -- and by obvious logical conclusion, they believe Obama supports the notion -- that people should NOT attempt to fulfill their own financial obligations.
Quite bizarre.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 18, 2008 10:01 AM | Email ThisThanks for the link.
You can call them lies, but there is a grain of truth to every one of Cusack's comments.
I think the rest of us would call it spin rather than outright lies.
I wouldn't do that, though, because having a "grain" of truth is not enough to actually be true and worthwhile. And pushing something like that AS true is LYING.
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2008 10:56 AMGlad to know.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 18, 2008 10:57 AMThere is a reason for that. Any effort to mislead the receiver of information so as to make them believe something that is not correct is effectively lying. Nothing is served when we lose respect for the truth. In some ways we begin to assume all information is not truthful which then allows us to justify the lack of truth in those whom we prefer ideologically. We can then justify belief over fact.
Insist on truth. If you get to the point where you justify lies as long as your candidate wins then you have admitted that cheating is allowed as long as the outcome is what you want. there is no surer way to anarchy.
Posted by: Eyago on June 18, 2008 11:20 AMQuinnipiac shows Obama with a double-digit lead in Ohio, and leading on Florida and Pennsylvania, and the trend lines are all in favor of Obama.
You think people want to privatize Social Security? Go ahead, run on that. Please.
Conservatism has failed, just like it always has and always will. The Ron Paul supporters will be running your party soon. That should be fun to watch.
You appear to be saying that it is OK for them to lie, because ... McCain wouldn't want them to tell the truth?
Try again!
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2008 12:22 PMI think you get my point. This kind of crap goes on all the time on both sides of the aisle and is very harmful to the process. So why do you post it as something only the left engages in? Why not take a stand against regardless of the source?
Try again!
Posted by: ivan on June 18, 2008 01:00 PMWitz: my time is limited and I am not going to post everything. So I am going to post things that interest me most, and one of those is exposing the lies from the left about McCain.
Further, I did recently criticize a hit piece by CNN against Obama ... will you see similar defenses of McCain on HA or other local leftwing sites? Yeah, didn't think so.
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2008 01:11 PM As for those folks who really believed that markets only go up, i feel sorry for them. Generally speaking, every transaction has two people thinking they are doing the smart thing. Some buy low and sell high, some buy low and sell even lower.
Huh. Who knew.
Posted by: Don Ward on June 18, 2008 03:12 PMThe only people that get hurt when riding a roller coaster are those that try to get off the ride too early.
Posted by: Splinter on June 18, 2008 03:17 PMIf Obama changes his positions on offshore drilling, windfall profits tax, increased taxes - there would be a grain of truth in those, but more than likely inconsistencies in his revised campaign promises.
Posted by: KS on June 18, 2008 06:05 PMDon't worry about Iran: with the US safely out of the way, the Israelis won't hesitate to put a nuke on anything threatening from Tehran.
The thing we should be working towards is energy independence, border security (especially the southern border), and moving towards a policy of military isolationism. We can't be world cop anymore.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on June 18, 2008 06:50 PMHis main goal certainly isn't to get them out of harms way. If that was true he would want them out now and seek to ensure they are all out if he is President.
His main goal is something else entirely, but not that.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 18, 2008 10:15 PMThe essence of McCain's position does keep the troops in harms way. That's just the simply consequence of it.
False.
His main goal certainly isn't to get them out of harms way. If that was true he would want them out now and seek to ensure they are all out if he is President.
Hm. Except Obama isn't saying that. Why do you think that is? Because he knows he is expected to say that he will only take them out as possible to also ensure our national security, including making sure Iraq doesn't devolve into chaos.
Which is McCain's position.
If anything, Obama is the one copying McCain on Iraq.
Nice try though.
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2008 10:20 PMWow, you've created your very own reality distortion field with that statement. Impressive.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 18, 2008 10:25 PMThe Left loves to wail on about our dependence on foreign oil and the implications of that on the MIddle East and foreign policy. But all the while supporting the extremists who have created all of our energy woes by thwarting every attempt for the market to increase supply and create more energy.
And then when Republicans have simply followed suit, and failed to repeal all of the bad leftist laws, that's called "conservativism."
Real conservatives don't care how we get to the right conclusions. If it were the Democrats that were now proposing some energy policy sanity, I'd be voting for Democrats.
But instead, the best we get is a weak knee McCain realization that doing nothing won't work. While Obama is ready to charge ahead with all of the well documented policies that history has shown as utter failures that will be sure to have the opposite effect of actually meeting our energy needs.
It's econ 101. But all of these leftists skipped class and went to the peace rallies. Increase supply, lower prices.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 09:08 AM