I fully concede that Al Gore never said that he invented the Internet. It's a misinterpretation of what he he actually said, which was that he "took initiative in creating the Internet," that he took part in the legislative efforts to get it off the ground.
Many Democrats have bemoaned this "clear example" of conservative bias in the media, complaining that it's the media's job to debunk things like this, not continue to push them. And they feel it is their job, as citizens who love truth, to point out to us all -- every time a joke is made about it -- that it's a myth.
I basically agree with all of that (except for the "conservative bias" nonsense), and I have done my share in debunking the myth on occasion.
I've also devoted significant effort in correcting the myths that John Kerry ever opposed funding of our troops back in 2003/2004, and the various Obama/Muslim myths.
So perhaps those same Democrats who decry the perpetuation of those myths will join me in setting the record straight on some other persistent myths, for example:
the myth that John McCain ever said he doesn't know much about the economy
the myth that John McCain ever said he would keep troops in harm's way in Iraq for 100 years
the myth that John McCain did anything whatsoever wrong in the Keating scandal
There's more of course, but these would be a good start.
Democrats: will you join me in spreading truth about all candidates, not just the ones you like? Thanks in advance!
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 27, 2008 10:31 PM | Email ThisLatin-1 in this case.
McCain's grasp of the economy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1X3efvVTLA
McCain's endorsement of a century long military engagement in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
McCain's connection to Keating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-map_m-8glE
Posted by: Daniel K on August 28, 2008 12:08 AMCase in point: Progressive Healthcare. It's a total disaster in the UK and Canada. If voters knew just how much it hurts the poor, and how long the lines were, they would never vote it in to being. It's only by holding out the lollypop of free healthcare and vilifying insurance companies and doctors that the lie is kept alive.
Real life requires value, responsibility and hard choices and nothing comes free. Progressives want to create victims and shield people from such conservative action, because that is how they continue to cling.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2008 12:45 AMLOL, I'm still waiting for the press to push Kerry on his form #180.
That he said he would sign, what 4 years ago...
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 28, 2008 07:17 AMAs to OBumma, His only economic background is in Socialism, and Left-wing Donor-fed economics. Hardly a learning ground for a Nation that thrives on Free Markets. He just hasn't even associated with market oriented folks unless they were buying him.
Posted by: keb on August 28, 2008 07:28 AMI'm a very open minded political junkie and I just have to say, the three "myths" your asking for are really not myths.
Firstly, Mccain was quoted stating "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should; I've got Greenspan's book." This isn't a fabricated line I even saw it myself on TV. A quick search couldn't pull up a video, but if you just look at google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22the+issue+of+economics+is+not+something%22&start=20&sa=N there are plenty of resources.
"the myth that John McCain ever said he would keep troops in harm's way in Iraq for 100 years" Okay Pudge, in trying to write such a non-objective request, you put a small phrase in this section to trick everyone. "he would keep troops in harm's way" True, he said "Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed"
That isn't even a media myth.
The interesting thing about the phrase is if troops were being wounded or killed, would he pull out? What a silly and pointless argument. Just saying he could forsee us being in Iraq in 100 years is why people take it seriously.
Finally, the keating question. You ask if Mccain did anything wrong? "The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). "McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981.[8] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates"
I still have to laugh at the wording of this blog post. We're lucky to have such a independant thinker. Way to reach out to "the other side of the isle". haha.
Posted by: Gerald on August 28, 2008 07:32 AMGerald: I'm a very open minded political junkie and I just have to say, the three "myths" your asking for are really not myths.
Incorrect. All of them are. The facts are clear.
Firstly, Mccain was quoted stating "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should; I've got Greenspan's book."
So? How does that support the myth that McCain said he doesn't know much about the economy? I had a brilliant Greek professor, who knew ancient Greek better than anyone else I've ever met, by far. And he said he planned to learn Hebrew someday ... after he mastered Greek. Saying you don't know something as well as you should, or as well as something else, does not mean you don't know much about it.
So no, this is, indeed, a myth. He never, ever, said or implied he doesn't know much about the economy. He only said he wishes he knew it better, which I'd hope would be true of every candidate for President, including Obama; and that he knows some other things better than he knows the economy, which is obviously true, and also obviously true of Obama.
"the myth that John McCain ever said he would keep troops in harm's way in Iraq for 100 years" Okay Pudge, in trying to write such a non-objective request, you put a small phrase in this section to trick everyone. "he would keep troops in harm's way" True, he said "Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed"
So how am I tricking anyone? The whole Democrat talking point for this myth is that McCain would keep troops in harm's way for 100 years, that McCain would keep our troops in danger, and dying. There was even a Democratic ad against McCain that said "we've had thousands die in the first few years, and McCain wants to keep it up for 100 more years" etc. But McCain explicitly said he wouldn't do that, as you concede. So it's a myth.
Finally, the keating question. You ask if Mccain did anything wrong?
No. I assert the fact that he did nothing wrong. I do not ask it, because I already know the answer.
The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
Yes, he was accused, and COMPLETELY EXONERATED. The prosecutor for the case himself said there was no evidence against McCain, and the conclusion of the ethics committee is that he did nothing wrong and no action would be taken against him. (Same thing with Glenn, by the way.)
"McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates"
You surely know the fact that just because McCain got contributions doesn't mean he did anything wrong, right? And in fact, McCain gave all the money in lawful contributions he received from Keating to the U.S. Treasury as a donation, and he returned the monetary value of all the gifts he received from Keating, back to Keating.
So, again: yes, all of these are, in fact, myths.
Posted by: pudge on August 28, 2008 07:47 AMIf you added the "harms way" to the statement of the myth, then Gerald's point has much more validity, but its still a semantic argument. McCain's "100 yrs" comment was off the cuff, and meant nothing more than he would like to see an American military presence in Iraq for a very long time as a regional stabilizer (in exactly the same manner and for the same reason that US troops and equipment are and have been stationed in Europe since the end of WWII, ie, NOT in combat or in "harms way"). But it is not a myth that he said what he said.
Posted by: srogers on August 28, 2008 08:14 AMOn the flip side, yes you haven't went with the Obama == Muslim thread, but you have your own "myths" that you do keep spouting off, especially repeating the McCain lie about Obama and taxes. This is easily disproven by Obama's detailed tax plan he has put out. You also continually state that Obama will greatly expand government's reach. This isn't in the myth category, but it is in the falsehood category. I will grant it if we kept government at its current level and then added Obama's proposals, it would expand government, but this isn't what he is proposing. I would compare it more to the Clinton years where new initiatives came on line at the same time other parts of government were streamlining. To me, one of the needed emphasis that is needed at least every ten years would be for government agencies to have their mission reapproved. Part of Al Gore's reinventing government effort was for each agency to go through what its mission was and streamline/eliminate those activities that were no longer needed. One can bring on new initiatives as long as out-dated ones are eliminated. Obama hasn't directly stated this, but has indirectly stated this by saying that if the funding for the new initiatives can't come out of other places in the budget then they will be delayed.
The size of government has expanded a lot more under the eight years of Bush, than it did under eight years of Clinton. Some of Clinton's reductions however should not be credited with him, because they were the Peace Dividend gained by the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, Clinton did fall through with the reductions instead of redirecting the government personnel and budget to even more other new initiatives.
Posted by: tc on August 28, 2008 08:21 AMNot quite. Look at Clintons first 2 years. The US growth had gone no-where. When the Rep took over Clinton went to the middle real fast.
Taxes were cut, welfare reform happened, and yes Clinton cut 500.000 armed forces jobs. (bad idea)
I always laugh when the dem's forget Clintons first two years.
you have your own "myths" that you do keep spouting off, especially repeating the McCain lie about Obama and taxes.
Quote me.
This is easily disproven by Obama's detailed tax plan he has put out. You also continually state that Obama will greatly expand government's reach. This isn't in the myth category, but it is in the falsehood category.
Incorrect. His own "Blueprint for Change" backs this claim up. He states he wants more regulation of health insurance, credit, employment, the environment, and a multitude of other items. This is truth.
Al Gore did clearly come out as a defender of the environment, wining a Nobel prize for his efforts in reducing global warming.
The same Al Gore that sits in a 22,000 square foot manson using more energy in one day than most homes use in a month.
And for all his energy savings efforts has actually increased use, after installing energy efficiency measures.
This is according the the local utility that was questioned a few months back.
So we should all follow his example,right.
I wouldn't follow him to a cat fight even if it were Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.
McCain has repeatedly stated that Obama plans to raise taxes and what he is referring to is the Bush Tax cuts. Obama's plan spells out what he actually proposes, which is to keep all the Bush tax cuts in place, except for those earning over $250K. For the over $250K, the rates would expire and go back to their rates established under Clinton. You have not denounced McCain for this lie and repeat it almost verbatim when you say that Obama plans to raise taxes.
Yes, his plan spells out new initiatives. Some may involve additional government personnel, others do not (i.e., tax credits, changes in regulations, etc.).
I don't care about "additional government personnel." I never mentioned that, and do not care about it.
You fail to cover, however, Obama's statements regarding Pay-Go
In large part because I don't believe a damned word of it. Obama has voted for a budget deficit since the Democrats took control of Congress.
But I also don't really care even if he means it, since it doesn't mean a thing: he still wants to greatly expand government, and will do what he has to, to make it happen, including raising taxes.
McCain has repeatedly stated that Obama plans to raise taxes and what he is referring to is the Bush Tax cuts.
Right. Obama wants to raise taxes from the current level, to a higher level, for many taxpayers. You cannot win the argument that taxes going up from what they currently are is not raising taxes. You've tried and failed before, and you won't win it now.
You have not denounced McCain for this lie
It's not a lie. It's fact. Obama plans to raise taxes. You're completely full of shit when you say that taxes going up from their current level is not an increase.
You believe lies about Obama that McCain states without any proof, yet you discount Obama's own direct words. Last night, Obama went even further than Pay-Go. He stated that he will go through the entire US Budget, line by line, and cut out the outdated and unnecessary programs. Now, obviously, it won't be he himself. It will be an executive order to all departments to come back and justify their existence and requests for funds.
You again repeat the McCain lie about Obama on taxes. That makes you also a lier. As Obama stated last night, his tax plan cuts taxes for over 95% of the people. Only those making over $250K per year will see their taxes increase. This must mean that (1) you make over that much, and (2) you have an "idoit" filter on to not know the basic tax facts that under 5% of the country makes over this much. I am calling you out Pudge. You are lying about Obama's tax plan, just like McCain is. Go back to school and take a math course to understand that under 5% does not equal the majority of the country. The only thing it may equal is a majority of John McCain's (and obviously yours) friends. For the the rest of us normal, working class folks, we do not get a tax increase under Obama's plan. PERIOD!!!!!!
Posted by: tc on August 29, 2008 03:47 PMNo, it is not. That's nonsensical and immaterial.
You believe lies about Obama
Such as? You've never given a single example.
yet you discount Obama's own direct words
Because his actions do not match his words, yes. This is called rationality.
You again repeat the McCain lie about Obama on taxes.
No. Everything I said was fact. I defy you to show otherwise. Quote me saying something untrue. Go ahead.
I am calling you out Pudge.
No, you are not. For you to do that, you would have to actually provide evidence against me.
Go back to school and take a math course to understand that under 5% does not equal the majority of the country.
Go back to school and take a reading course to understand I never said anything about majorities. I never said your taxes would go up.
After re-reading what I wrote, perhaps you would apologize for accusing me of lying.