When do we get stories about how the McCain campaign has been 'dogged by questions about its honesty?

Like the debunking of the pretexts for the war in Iraq: about a year after it doesn't matter.

According to McCain Palin is going to “reform all of Washington� as to earmarks (and I assume other budget issues?). She also knows more about energy than anyone. I suppose the hint there is she’ll take care of our energy problems, being the most knowledgeable person available on the issue. She’s going to stare down the Russians, what with her extensive dealings with them while governor of Alaska. So, energy, the budget and our nemesis the Russians are all Palin’s purview and she’ll take care of all three. Why do we need McCain?

When do we get stories about how the McCain campaign has been 'dogged by questions about its honesty?'"

new faux outrage to put Obama on the defensive in 3... 2... 1...

Why doesn't Obama, Bidden, Clinton, and other supporters with a high profile call them liars?
Would be a great job for Bill!
Get a catchy sound bite and let the press do the rest, time for those assholes to go on the defensive,

So, energy, the budget and our nemesis the Russians are all Palin’s purview and she’ll take care of all three.

Palin's clever plan works like this:
We go to war with Russia.
The surface crust is blown off of substantial portions of both countries. Oil can then be collected in buckets.
Dead people don't require federal spending.

When do we get stories about how the McCain campaign has been 'dogged by questions about its honesty?'"

Ummm . . . when pigs with lipstick fly?

I think what's going on with the media reaction to the McCain/Palin campaign isn't really about lying, McCain or Palin. I think the political/media elite desperately want to believe that all the stuff that's happened over the last 8 years, all the stuff they've either cheered on or meekly allowed, was just a fluke. That none of it reveals any deeper truth about America or especially about themselves.

But now McCain is basically imitating everything the elite want to forget about the Bush/Cheney era and they have that.

Mike

At the base of pathological lies are pathological liars. That would require an analysis of the pathologies or psychological defects of the originators of those lies. The behaviors exhibited by McCain would lead many to ask questions about his mental fitness for the presidency but I really don't think the press will stray into that territory. Just too hot but that does not mean the question should not be asked -- is a man who has demonstrated histrionic character disorders prior to and over his lifetime of public service fit to be president?

When Senator McCain is asked about his bogus ads and the tenor of the campaign, he has the nerve to blame Senator Obama. If only Senator Obama had agreed to the joint town hall meetings, he wouldn't have to endure the lies of the McCain campaign. Talk about not taking responsibility for your own actions! If Senator McCain wants to be a straight-talker and an honorable person, it shouldn't depend on anything other than actually being a straight-talker and honorable person. He apparently isn't either.

John McCain is spending his capital. Just as Bush said he would do with the "political capital" he supposedly earned in the '04 campaign. Surely Rove et al, now advising McCain, gave Bush that idea. What's the point of earning it unless you're gonna spend it, they must figure.

McCain built a reputation for "strait talk" (deservedly or not) over his career, and now he's using it up in his all-out effort to become Pres, just as Bush did with the push to privatize social security.

Outrageous! Obama used the word "the" again! How dare he use that word while talking about Sarah Palin! He was also heard to use the words "can't," "if" and "Tuesday." The abomination of it all! When will the liberals stop assaulting this poor woman?!? When will the American people demand some decency from the Democrats??

Orwell>> Palin pulling her support after embarrassment

Yeah, well, that would probably be important if relevant. But in fact, Congress killed the bridge before she even got into office -- though not before she campaigned in support of the bridge. You can't say "No thanks!" to a thing not being offered.

But to be fair, she did say a hefty Thanks! to all that money...

When Barack Obama and his television talking heads, his surrogates and others say:

"John McCain keeps saying things that aren't true. So does his running mate. So do his campaign ads. So do his surrogates on television."

And boldly asks the media why it fails to cover the over-arching narrative of the campaign McCain is running. Why they continue to have discussion and polls about if the McCain campaign isn't playing fair or distorting - they know it - and they need to stop with all of this neutrality BS. Aren't their lives at stake here too?

Lie, baby, lie.

Steve, did you read the entire article? The first half is encouraging but is weak on it's use of verbs. Skirting of facts, dubious claims, aggressive claims and less than truthful campaigning by McCain. While Obama is accused of "exaggerated or questionable assertions".

By the end of the article we are left with "Both candidates are spinning untruths but Obama acknowledges his a little sooner than McCain."

Don't be too quick to cut these guys any breaks.

John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

- Wash. Post

Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie Lie McCain.
peace,
st john

Time to tie "credibility" into the campaign against him - and to tie it in to another certain high-office-holder's credibility problems.

Has anyone else noticed that the AP pieces no longer have author names on them? I was reading a piece on Yahoo and it wasn't credited. I saw a piece elsewhere also not titled.

Anyone else notice this?

Perhaps the more important thing to watch for is how the Conservative media establishment at Fox, Wall Street Journal, talk radio etc... reacts to the uncovering of falsehoods. If they start holding their nose then McCain has problems. But, as is more likely, if they take a pass on criticizing these lies or actually try to deflect the criticisms themseves, then you know the lies will continue and proliferate. The conservative media does not exist to inform. It exists to ensure that conservatism wins every time. So if they think McCain's fabrications are a losing strategy they will let him know in the coverage he gets. If they think its a winner, and they can protect him with the millions of viewers who have been brain-washed into only trusting Fox, then Katie bar the door.

McNocchio/PaLying '08
True Republican Mavericks