DNC Already Smearing McCain

From Factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

[i]Smear or Be Smeared?
February 8, 2008
The DNC plans “unlimited” spending against McCain; some of its claims are misleading.

Summary

The Democratic National Committee proposes to spend unlimited amounts of money to “tell the real story” about John McCain before Republicans can “start smearing” the eventual Democratic nominee. But the line of attack the Democrats outline to their potential donors in an e-mail contains some claims that are false or misleading.

* The DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

* It says McCain "looked the other way" rather than investigate Jack Abramoff and a Republican "Culture of Corruption." In fact, McCain's investigation led to a prison term for Abramoff and the downfall of several powerful Republicans. His investigators didn't probe members of Congress directly, but that wasn't the job of his Indian Affairs Committee. And in any case, federal prosecutors opposed a competing congressional investigation which might have interfered with their own efforts.

* The DNC message makes criticisms of McCain that could be directed at its own leading candidates as well. It notes that he lacks training in economics, which is equally true of Clinton and Obama. And it accuses him of "staggering" reliance on lobbyists for campaign help, when Clinton also has substantial aid from lobbyists and Obama has some from former lobbyists.

If recent history is any guide, the preemptive attack that the DNC outlines in this message will be followed by similar attacks by Republicans. Past elections have included spiraling rounds of attacks by both parties, in which each side claims to be responding in kind to the other.

Analysis

According to this fundraising pitch ( http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/ll_beat_John_McCain.pdf ), the DNC plans a massive advertising campaign that will give voters what we judge to be a distorted picture of Arizona Sen. John McCain’s positions. The mass e-mail was sent out to the party faithful Feb. 6, the day after McCain emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, and even before former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney suspended his run for the GOP nomination. The subject of the e-mail: “How we’ll beat John McCain.”

In the message, party chairman Howard Dean complains that McCain is a “media darling” whose “carefully-crafted image” can’t be trusted. He asks for contributions to finance a series of attacks. “Only the Democratic Party is legally allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to back our nominee and tell the real story about John McCain,” he writes. “Let’s get going.”

A 100-Year War?

The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an “endless” war in Iraq.

DNC: [quote]We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"[/quote]

That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:

    McCain, Jan. 3: [quote]Make it a hundred. ... We�??ve been in Japan for 60 years. We�??ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It�??s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.[/quote]

    It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stuck_in_iraq.html ) that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.

There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.

"Culture of Corruption"

Perhaps the most twisted claim the DNC makes about McCain is this:

    DNC: [quote][McCain] looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.[/quote]

The truth is that McCain, as chairman of the Senate’s Indian Affairs Committee, vigorously pursued an investigation into how tribes had been fleeced by the mostly Republican lobbyists they hired to back their casino ventures. Federal prosecutors later sent a number of players in the scandal to prison, including lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio. The scandal also entangled ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480.html ) and contributed to the downfall of ex-Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the former Republican majority leader, who once described Abramoff as “one of my closest and dearest friends.” It also contributed to the defeats of Republican Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/politics/main2347610.shtml ) and eight-term Republican Rep. Richard Pombo of California ( http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=local&id=4742154 ). Even McCain’s critics admit he kept pressure on the Bush Justice Department while it investigated Abramoff. To say that he “looked the other way” is false.

The DNC and others point to a news item from 2005 in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call ( http://www.rollcall.com/issues/50_85/news/8465-1.html ), which said McCain assured colleagues that his investigation wasn’t aimed at them. According to the report, McCain said at the weekly lunch of the GOP’s Steering Committee, “It’s not our responsibility in any way to involve ourselves in the ethics process [of senators]. … That was not the responsibility of the Indian Affairs Committee.” But that should come as no surprise; investigating possible misconduct by senators is the job of the Senate Ethics Committee (spelled out on page 12 of the Senate Ethics Manual http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/manual.pdf ).

Furthermore, the Ethics Committee publicly declined in 2006 to investigate the Abramoff affair ( http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/pr021706.pdf ), because the Justice Department was already conducting criminal investigations and had told the committee that a parallel Senate probe could interfere. Even the Ethics Committee’s Democratic vice chairman, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, concurred in that decision. We fail to see how the DNC can with any honesty criticize McCain for failing to do the job of another committee, especially when that panel’s leading Democrat feared that a congressional investigation might jeopardize possible criminal cases.

The DNC’s Glass House

The DNC also throws some stones at McCain that could be hurled at their own leading candidates.

* Economics: The DNC paints McCain as untrained to run the economy: "McCain has said: 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' " That's an accurate quote. But while McCain wasn't trained as an economist, neither were Obama or Clinton. Clinton has touted her experience working for children and health care. Obama talks about his experience organizing the poor and low-income workers in Chicago. None of the three senators sit on the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee or the Budget Committee. We'll be interested to hear the DNC explain how a graduate of Harvard or Yale law schools is any better educated about economics or the economy than an Annapolis grad who has been in Congress longer than the two Democrats put together.

* Lobbyists: The e-mail criticizes McCain for his reliance on lobbyists to raise campaign money, implying that his past crusades for stricter campaign-finance regulation and tightened congressional ethics laws were insincere efforts to "score political points":

    DNC: [quote]After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign.[/quote]

This is a reference to a recent report by Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader, which has tallied 59 persons who are or formerly were registered as lobbyists serving as "bundlers" (fundraisers) for McCain's campaign. That's more than for any other candidate, and Public Citizen said McCain's list is growing.

However, neither of the leading Democratic candidates are entirely innocent on this score. Clinton voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation in 2002, and nevertheless has 20 lobbyist-bundlers aiding her campaign, according to the Public Citizen report. And even Obama, who crusaded for congressional ethics legislation last year, has 10 fundraisers whom Public Citizen identified as lobbyist-bundlers. In his case, all are former lobbyists and none are now registered.

Closer to the Mark

The DNC is closer to the mark on some other matters. Briefly:

* Abortion: The DNC says "McCain has vowed to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade," the Supreme Court decision that makes most abortions legal. McCain has come pretty close to saying just that. On his Web site he says ( http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm ), "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."

* Immigration: The e-mail accuses McCain of running "as far to the right as he can" on immigration and of "aligning himself with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party." And in fact, McCain said in the most recent GOP debate that he would not vote again for the immigration bill he sponsored in 2005 with Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. He said he now believes "the people want the border secured first" before dealing with those who already are here illegally. At an earlier debate, Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the party's most vocal critic of illegal immigration, noted happily that McCain and other GOP candidates had started to sound like him. He said, "All I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo. It is great. I am so happy to hear it. It is a wonderful thing. It's a good message, yes. We want to secure the borders." When  Tancredo later dropped out of the GOP race, however, he endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ( http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/71220020/1001 ), not McCain.

More to Come

The DNC is perfectly accurate when it notes that its rival, the Republican National Committee, is also laying plans to attack Clinton or Obama as soon as either of them sews up the Democratic nomination. We have no reason to think that the RNC’s attacks will be any more accurate than the DNC’s. In the 2004 campaign, both parties ran misleading ads against the other’s nominee. In the 2006 congressional elections, we noted that the Democratic and Republican committees responsible for House campaigns both had become “factories for attack ads,” and that the National Republican Congressional Committee in particular was responsible for “mudslinging on an industrial scale.” We hope for better this year, but this DNC e-mail gives us little reason to expect it.

�??by Brooks Jackson [/i]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
From Factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

[i]Smear or Be Smeared?
February 8, 2008
The DNC plans “unlimited” spending against McCain; some of its claims are misleading.

Summary

The Democratic National Committee proposes to spend unlimited amounts of money to “tell the real story” about John McCain before Republicans can “start smearing” the eventual Democratic nominee. But the line of attack the Democrats outline to their potential donors in an e-mail contains some claims that are false or misleading.

* The DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." [/quote]

I always read the articles you post because, more often than not, they are quality material and I end up learning new things. But this time, I couldn’t get past that one.

In fact, your partisan devotion is causing you to forsake all common sense. Explain to me how Americans “not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed” refutes the premise of an “endless war”. Does it not matter if Iraqis are shredded to bits and pieces?

At the risk of repeating myself: Iraqis will continue to resist your military presence on their soil as long as there’s a single one of them alive.

You don’t seem to understand that most of them have lost, if not a family member, limb or home, then at least friends, acquaintances and the ability to go shopping without the constant fear of getting blown up. As long as you’re there, they will kill and maim US soldiers. Whether you stay one more day or 95 more years (see, 5 are already down!) does not matter. In fact, give the orphans time to grow up in that chaos, and chances are that they will follow you home and start killing indiscriminately.

Just imagine the way these kind of stories are reported in Iraq:

McCain favors endless war in the sense that every other American president since WWII has favored a state of perpetual war that benefits a certain elite. Hillary’s no different. Obama does slightly better on the “evil scale”, but at the end of the day, is still an establishment candidate.

Rant about the Rats all you like. Most of them are sneaky bastards in my book anyway. But do not try to sell the idea that McCain doesn’t support an endless war. What is needed, is a formal apology for the carnage, unnecessary violence, and unintended consequences of the invasion coupled with a complete and unconditional withdrawal from Iraqi land.

And trust me, sooner or latter the apology will come. In a transparent democratic state, there’s only so far you go before documents get declassified and public opinion catches on with what the rest of the world has been saying from the beginning.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
From Factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

[i]Smear or Be Smeared?
February 8, 2008
The DNC plans “unlimited” spending against McCain; some of its claims are misleading.

Summary

The Democratic National Committee proposes to spend unlimited amounts of money to “tell the real story” about John McCain before Republicans can “start smearing” the eventual Democratic nominee. But the line of attack the Democrats outline to their potential donors in an e-mail contains some claims that are false or misleading.

* The DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." [/i]

lixy wrote:
I always read the articles you post because, more often than not, they are quality material and I end up learning new things. But this time, I couldn’t get past that one.

In fact, your partisan devotion is causing you to forsake all common sense. Explain to me how Americans “not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed” refutes the premise of an “endless war”. Does it not matter if Iraqis are shredded to bits and pieces?

At the risk of repeating myself: Iraqis will continue to resist your military presence on their soil as long as there’s a single one of them alive.

You don’t seem to understand that most of them have lost, if not a family member, limb or home, then at least friends, acquaintances and the ability to go shopping without the constant fear of getting blown up. As long as you’re there, they will kill and maim US soldiers. Whether you stay one more day or 95 more years (see, 5 are already down!) does not matter. In fact, give the orphans time to grow up in that chaos, and chances are that they will follow you home and start killing indiscriminately.

Just imagine the way these kind of stories are reported in Iraq:

McCain favors endless war in the sense that every other American president since WWII has favored a state of perpetual war that benefits a certain elite. Hillary’s no different. Obama does slightly better on the “evil scale”, but at the end of the day, is still an establishment candidate.

Rant about the Rats all you like. Most of them are sneaky bastards in my book anyway. But do not try to sell the idea that McCain doesn’t support an endless war. What is needed, is a formal apology for the carnage, unnecessary violence, and unintended consequences of the invasion coupled with a complete and unconditional withdrawal from Iraqi land.

And trust me, sooner or latter the apology will come. In a transparent democratic state, there’s only so far you go before documents get declassified and public opinion catches on with what the rest of the world has been saying from the beginning.[/quote]

The article is by FactCheck.org, a non-partisan organization devoted to putting truth back into politics.

Here’s their home page: http://www.factcheck.org/

The answer to your question was right after the part you quoted, amazingly enough:

[i]That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube ( - YouTube ). Far from advocating “endless war,” he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be “fine with me” provided that they’re not being killed or wounded. Here’s the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3:[quote] Make it a hundred. ... We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.[/quote]

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stuck_in_iraq.html ) that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.

There’s little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage “endless war” based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.[/i]

So, because troops are in fact being harmed he’s against long term or permanent bases? I would expect a pull out then if he becomes President. Because, well again, troops are being harmed for the sake of a populace that for the most part want them gone within a year’s time.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The answer to your question was right after the part you quoted, amazingly enough: [/quote]

As I pointed out, I stopped reading at that particular line.

[quote][i]That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube ( - YouTube ). Far from advocating “endless war,” he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be “fine with me” provided that they’re not being killed or wounded. Here’s the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stuck_in_iraq.html ) that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.

There’s little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage “endless war” based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.[/i][/quote]

I am quite familiar with what he said. The video was all over the web the morning after his speech.

I didn’t disputed that Hillary is hell-bent on war. I have been saying that for years now. I sincerely believe McCain’s position is one in which he advocates “endless war”, and I do not need the DNC stating the obvious for it. If you are mad that the Democrats are getting away with it even though they’re not that far away from McCain’s position, that’s your problem. it doesn’t change the fact that speaking of a ‘100 years’ is political suicide given the overall tone of every poll taken for the last couple of years.

Democrats are no better, but they have a way of sneaking war and intervention without shouting we do as we please, nuke the cockroaches or fsck the goons. You gotta give them credit for being a tad less arrogant than their colleagues on the other side, which - as you pointed out - allows them to depict McCain as a belligerent dude without fundamentally contradicting themselves. As far as Joe Six-Pack is concerned, they represent the anti-war movement (heck, JeffR calls them terrorist-sympathizers).

Look, I have always believed US troops will remain in Iraq as long as I’ll be around on this planet. And I don’t mean a symbolic presence either. This is not going to change, and if - by some common outbreak of common sense - a person who promised a complete withdrawal gets elected, he/she won’t live long enough to achieve that. Far too much is at stake. It ain’t a conspiracy theory; it’s logic talking.

The US didn’t go into Iraq to “spread democracy” or to save the Iraqis from a tyrant. They won’t give it up just because Saddam is gone or anything else. The US is there to keep Iran (and the others) in check, or even hope for border skirmishes to be used as a casus belli. Control over oil may be equally as important.


“DNC Already Smearing McCain.” So is the Libertarian party and the Constitution Party. They’re joining multiple Republican pundits for some bashing.

[i]Washington, D.C. - Following a solid McCain victory in the Super Tuesday primaries, the Libertarian Party has sent Republican headquarters a funeral wreath marking the death of limited-government values within the Republican Party. The wreath was hand-delivered to the D.C. offices of the Republican National Committee. “We simply felt the need to express our heartfelt sympathy for the Republican Party as they undergo this tough time within their party,” says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis, who delivered the wreath.

“Given that it has become readily apparent that Senator McCain will soon be the presidential nominee for the Republican Party,” reads a card that accompanied the wreath addressed to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, “we, the staff of the Libertarian National Committee, send our condolences to you upon the death of small-government principles within the GOP.”

The note continues:

[b]Libertarians encourage competition within both the free-market and politics. Unfortunately, with the rise of John McCain and the big-spending practices of the Bush administration, the two-party system has emerged as representing only one philosophy - big-government liberalism.

With your loss, the Libertarian Party will continue to move forward to represent those American patriots who still believe in smaller government, lower taxes and more individual freedom.[/b]

“McCain’s Super Tuesday win marks the death of limited government values within the Republican Party, which had struggled with its principles throughout the Bush administration,” says Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party. “It is a day of mourning for the few remaining small-government Republicans.”[/i]

[quote]lixy wrote:

I am quite familiar with what he said. The video was all over the web the morning after his speech.

I didn’t disputed that Hillary is hell-bent on war. I have been saying that for years now. I sincerely believe McCain’s position is one in which he advocates “endless war”, and I do not need the DNC stating the obvious for it. If you are mad that the Democrats are getting away with it even though they’re not that far away from McCain’s position, that’s your problem. it doesn’t change the fact that speaking of a ‘100 years’ is political suicide given the overall tone of every poll taken for the last couple of years. [/quote]

If you sincerely believe that, you’re being willfully ignorant.

The longest active troop deployment we ever had was Viet Nam - and we’re not repeating that.

Also, w/r/t “political suicide,” you need to understand the American mindset a little better. So does sloth for that matter.

This post is good - read it and remember it: http://tigerinexile.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/why-i-think-john-mccain-just-may-win-this-fall/

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:

I am quite familiar with what he said. The video was all over the web the morning after his speech.

I didn’t disputed that Hillary is hell-bent on war. I have been saying that for years now. I sincerely believe McCain’s position is one in which he advocates “endless war”, and I do not need the DNC stating the obvious for it. If you are mad that the Democrats are getting away with it even though they’re not that far away from McCain’s position, that’s your problem. it doesn’t change the fact that speaking of a ‘100 years’ is political suicide given the overall tone of every poll taken for the last couple of years.

If you sincerely believe that, you’re being willfully ignorant.

The longest active troop deployment we ever had was Viet Nam - and we’re not repeating that.

Also, w/r/t “political suicide,” you need to understand the American mindset a little better. So does sloth for that matter.

This post is good - read it and remember it: http://tigerinexile.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/why-i-think-john-mccain-just-may-win-this-fall/

[/quote]

Heh. If McCain wins, you’ll be correct. I will no longer understand the American mindset.

Oh shi-! Politicians bashing each other with claims that aren’t based in fact!

I are shocked at this!

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Oh shi-! Politicians bashing each other with claims that aren’t based in fact!

I are shocked at this![/quote]

How dare those bastards actually spend money to defeat the opposing candidate in what could be the most important election in history? Damn them.

And besides, Faux News is already doing the work for them.

[quote]tme wrote:

How dare those bastards actually spend money to defeat the opposing candidate in what could be the most important election in history? Damn them.[/quote]

Odd - I don’t see where anyone complained that the Democrats are spending money to defeat the opposing party.

Looks more - yep, the source was Factcheck.org - like the Democrats aren’t sticking to the facts. This, despite the fact that “progressives” have assured us over the years that evil Republicans lie to scare people into voting for them and pure-of-heart Democrats would never stoop to such base levels to try and win elections.

[quote]tme wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Oh shi-! Politicians bashing each other with claims that aren’t based in fact!

I are shocked at this!

How dare those bastards actually spend money to defeat the opposing candidate in what could be the most important election in history? Damn them.

And besides, Faux News is already doing the work for them.

[/quote]

That’s hilarious!

Why would they bother attacking McCain? He is pet senator to so many dems, you’d think they would embrace him!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looks more - yep, the source was Factcheck.org - like the Democrats aren’t sticking to the facts. This, despite the fact that “progressives” have assured us over the years that evil Republicans lie to scare people into voting for them and pure-of-heart Democrats would never stoop to such base levels to try and win elections.[/quote]

You see, I’ve never actually heard someone say this before…

Politicians are politicians. If they weren’t scum, they wouldn’t win.

This thread isn’t about “proving those self-righteous dems wrong”, it’s about trying to imply that the Democrats are more underhanded than the GOP, and therefore we should vote GOP.

I call that propaganda.

Both sides are scum. People need to get the fuck over that.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looks more - yep, the source was Factcheck.org - like the Democrats aren’t sticking to the facts. This, despite the fact that “progressives” have assured us over the years that evil Republicans lie to scare people into voting for them and pure-of-heart Democrats would never stoop to such base levels to try and win elections.

You see, I’ve never actually heard someone say this before…

Politicians are politicians. If they weren’t scum, they wouldn’t win.

This thread isn’t about “proving those self-righteous dems wrong”, it’s about trying to imply that the Democrats are more underhanded than the GOP, and therefore we should vote GOP.

I call that propaganda.

Both sides are scum. People need to get the fuck over that.[/quote]

How many presidential elections have you voted in?

…That’s what I thought.

Let the grown ups talk. If you would shut the fuck up and listen, you might just learn something.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

This thread isn’t about “proving those self-righteous dems wrong”, it’s about trying to imply that the Democrats are more underhanded than the GOP, and therefore we should vote GOP.

I call that propaganda.[/quote]

Wait, wait, wait - you think Boston’s point in starting this thread was to show that the Dems are more underhanded than the GOP, so you’ll vote GOP instead?

I can’t speak for Boston, but I suspect that wasn’t really his goal.

I like you, Beowolf - we need good, smart left of center POVs around here - but you are better than that reaction. It might poke a balloon in the idea that Dems are who they claim to be, but I don’t think it qualifies as GOP “propaganda” to have the discussion.

What is there to discuss though? Politicians smear each other with misleading “facts” all of the time.

I could see this article being used in a debate if someone were to bring up these claims, but creating a thread about the validity of claims that have not yet been made on this forum kind of lead me to my original analysis. The purpose of this thread is seemingly to influence my opinion of the Democratic party. If this were about a GOP smear campaign, I’d be saying the same thing.

It may not be Boston’s goal (I’m not accusing him of propaganda, and I’m sorry that my remarks came off like that), but I feel like this article is more evidence than a talking point all on its own.

@Rainjack: I’ve decided that from now on, I will respond to your anti-youth comments with the wisdom of Walter Sobchak; even when that wisdom is totally irrelevant! Enjoy!

Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don’t work, I don’t get in a car, I don’t fucking ride in a car, I don’t pick up the phone, I don’t turn on the oven, and I sure as shit don’t fucking roll! Shomer shabbos! ~Walter Sobchak

[quote]
Beowolf wrote:
This thread isn’t about “proving those self-righteous dems wrong”, it’s about trying to imply that the Democrats are more underhanded than the GOP, and therefore we should vote GOP.

I call that propaganda.

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wait, wait, wait - you think Boston’s point in starting this thread was to show that the Dems are more underhanded than the GOP, so you’ll vote GOP instead?

I can’t speak for Boston, but I suspect that wasn’t really his goal.

I like you, Beowolf - we need good, smart left of center POVs around here - but you are better than that reaction. It might poke a balloon in the idea that Dems are who they claim to be, but I don’t think it qualifies as GOP “propaganda” to have the discussion.[/quote]

True. My goal was simply to highlight the misinformation about McCain early - these DNC slanders are going to be repeated.

There will be mud slung in both directions, and I really doubt anyone will base his vote on being upset about the fact one side lies more than the other… However, in deciding between the candidates, one should make that decision based on the facts, not on the propaganda.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
What is there to discuss though? Politicians smear each other with misleading “facts” all of the time.

I could see this article being used in a debate if someone were to bring up these claims, but creating a thread about the validity of claims that have not yet been made on this forum kind of lead me to my original analysis. The purpose of this thread is seemingly to influence my opinion of the Democratic party. If this were about a GOP smear campaign, I’d be saying the same thing.

It may not be Boston’s goal (I’m not accusing him of propaganda, and I’m sorry that my remarks came off like that), but I feel like this article is more evidence than a talking point all on its own.


[/quote]

Seriously, look into Factcheck.org - it’s nonpartisan.

The reason they published the article is that the claims were brought up, by the DNC - in a fundraising letter, signed by Howard Dean. Whether the claims were made on this forum seems immaterial to me - how do you think it applies?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
@Rainjack: I’ve decided that from now on, I will respond to your anti-youth comments with the wisdom of Walter Sobchak; even when that wisdom is totally irrelevant! Enjoy!

Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don’t work, I don’t get in a car, I don’t fucking ride in a car, I don’t pick up the phone, I don’t turn on the oven, and I sure as shit don’t fucking roll! Shomer shabbos! ~Walter Sobchak
[/quote]

There is probably more relevance to Sobchak than anything you have to offer, so I thank you.

Seriously, has it ever crossed your mind that you really don’t possess the knowledge to offer anything of substance in the political forum? You have not paid any taxes, you have not voted, yet you think you have something to offer because you can read? Try living first. It trumps the written word.

When did it become acceptable to allow children to sit at the adult table?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:

I am quite familiar with what he said. The video was all over the web the morning after his speech.

I didn’t disputed that Hillary is hell-bent on war. I have been saying that for years now. I sincerely believe McCain’s position is one in which he advocates “endless war”, and I do not need the DNC stating the obvious for it. If you are mad that the Democrats are getting away with it even though they’re not that far away from McCain’s position, that’s your problem. it doesn’t change the fact that speaking of a ‘100 years’ is political suicide given the overall tone of every poll taken for the last couple of years.

If you sincerely believe that, you’re being willfully ignorant.

The longest active troop deployment we ever had was Viet Nam - and we’re not repeating that.

Also, w/r/t “political suicide,” you need to understand the American mindset a little better. So does sloth for that matter.

This post is good - read it and remember it: http://tigerinexile.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/why-i-think-john-mccain-just-may-win-this-fall/

[/quote]

Willful ignorance has become far too common on this forum.