At Least We Deserve Lies We Can Take Seriously

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Do politicians stretch the truth on occasion? Absolutely. Does it work on the voting public? If you're convincing in your rhetoric, definitely. So why is McCain drowning in his own filth? Because he's a spectacularly bad liar. Nobody, not even Karl Rove or Fox News, is taking his statements seriously anymore. Hour after hour of media coverage of McCain and Palin is filled with "fact-checks", adding an asterisk to everything they say. The notion that nothing McCain says can be taken seriously is getting hammered into the minds of Americans daily, and is completely tearing down that aura of trustworthiness McCain had spent 26-years building up before the election.

Text

Among all his other attainments, Bill Clinton was, in the words of former Sen. Bob Kerrey, "an unusually good liar." It's not the kind of thing you usually see engraved on trophies, but a case can be made that if it's something a president does, he might as well be good at it.

This comes particularly to mind in watching John McCain, who's shown himself over the past few weeks to be a an especially bad liar. McCain sets out untruths that are untrue on their face and untruths that are repeatedly demonstrated to be untrue, repeats them after their untruth is pointed out, and gets caught in them embarrassingly easily.

It's not what you'd call a display of skill.

Moreover, the ineptness is spreading to McCain's running mate, which is disappointing. When a candidate has a running mate 30 years younger, and she has limited national experience, he should be a better -- or at least a more deftly deceitful -- role model.

Instead, McCain and Palin have been insisting that she stopped the bridge to nowhere, no matter how many times people point out differently. In fact, he insists that she has always stood firmly against any federal earmark spending.

He's maintained that despite the Anchorage Daily News reporting that Palin sought $256 million in federal earmark spending during her first year and $197 million in her second. His insistence was even challenged on "The View," a show more typically about the meaning of Tom Cruise.

Told by Barbara Walters that Palin "also took some earmarks," McCain insisted "No, not as governor she didn't. She vetoed -- look, well, the fact is she's a reform governor."

Not only was Barbara Walters right and McCain wrong -- a phrase you don't usually like to hear about a potential president -- but governors can't veto federal earmarks.

Bill Clinton would have distorted that much better.

Still, even that may not have matched his claim, to ABC, that Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America."

The least you should be able to expect of a candidate's lie is some surface plausibility.

This position was based, if on anything, on the statement by both McCain and Palin that she governed a state producing 20 percent of U.S. energy.

Except she doesn't; Alaska produces 3.4 percent. After several impervious repetitions, the claim was adjusted to say that Alaska produced 20 percent of U.S. oil and gas, except that's not true either; it's more like 7.5 percent.

The percentage of her supreme national expertise on energy might be even lower.

It's discouraging when every statement has to come with asterisks; even the smallest ones.

This week, in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News - only her second interview since being named as McCain's running mate - Palin recalled her decision to accept the nomination. "It was a time of asking the girls to vote on it, anyway," Palin explained. "And they voted unanimously, yes."

Except, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, both McCain's communications director and Palin's husband had already said that her kids weren't told until the family had reached Ohio for the official announcement. That doesn't even count Palin telling Charles Gibson that when McCain offered the job, she accepted it immediately -- without blinking.

This is another example of a truly disheartening display of untruth. Not only is it disprovable by previously public evidence, but it wouldn't even do her much good if it were true. If she had said that the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, or the archangel Gabriel, had persuaded her to take the spot, not everyone might have believed her, but at least those who did would have been impressed.

This version, not so much.

We should be able to expect from our politicians, if not invariable truth, at least a little effort and thought in their dishonesties. From McCain and Palin, we're getting a very disappointing performance.

More than a hundred years ago, Mark Twain was similarly saddened by the scope of the lies of a previous GOP candidate, James G. Blaine. The candidate, he thought, was discrediting the entire practice; after listening to him, wrote Twain, "I don't seem able to lie with any heart any more."

If we can't get truth, we can demand better lies.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
So it's fine to lie, as long as you're good at it and/or you have the correct letter after your name? Seriously man, therapy might not be a bad option at this point.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So it's fine to lie, as long as you're good at it and/or you have the correct letter after your name? Seriously man, therapy might not be a bad option at this point.
Sorry, I should have put an asterisk in my own post.

*Article requires >70 IQ to comprehend political satire contained within

Now run back to school.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,301
144
106
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So it's fine to lie, as long as you're good at it and/or you have the correct letter after your name? Seriously man, therapy might not be a bad option at this point.
to answer your question: yes.

Because as it is right now, both candidates are lying about certain things. Its just that McCain really looks bad when he does it.

Put McCain in a scenario where he has to "stretch the truth" in order to protect Americas interests...and he will flounder. He is a bad liar, did you see him on "The View?"

I don't think you have that problem with Obama. As much as you dont like it, Obama fits the Bill Clinton mold when it comes to oratory skills. McCain falls in line much the same way as GWB.

Im not saying that it is any reason to vote one way or another. Im just calling it as I see it.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Right. McCain lies and gets caught. Obama lies and gets applauded.

Conclusion: Obama is saavy.

Brilliant.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,205
3,323
136
If you are going to lie do it well, but hopefully you wont have to lie. First we get a republican that cant speak now we get a republican that cant lie to save his life.

Im more sad about that fact that out of the 300+ milliion people in the U.S. these 2 nominees are the best we can come up with. :(
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: loki8481
Because he's a spectacularly bad liar.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
:thumbsup:
The two of you trying to take the high road when it comes to lying?
I'm from hudson county. I've got a cynicism towards politics and a tolerance for lying on the campaign trail not often seen outside of the shadows of tammany hall.

Accept certain inalienable truths: price will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old. if we're going to have politicians that are going to lie to our faces no matter who we do, would you rather have a snake-oil salesman or someone who's doing it grudgingly out of political necessity?
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
If you are going to lie do it well, but hopefully you wont have to lie. First we get a republican that cant speak now we get a republican that cant lie to save his life.

Im more sad about that fact that out of the 300+ milliion people in the U.S. these 2 nominees are the best we can come up with. :(
Your right Barrack is finally qualified at something.
Being a convincing liar...lol......:cookie:
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: loki8481
Because he's a spectacularly bad liar.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
No, I think it's a great thing. His campaign is reaching for new lows each day he opens his mouth.

And just so the mentally challenged are aware, this is political satire. ;)
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: loki8481
Because he's a spectacularly bad liar.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
No, I think it's a great thing. His campaign is reaching for new lows each day he opens his mouth.

And just so the mentally challenged are aware, this is political satire. ;)
I must be retarded, I totally didn't see the satire.

of course, had I clicked on the link, I might have seen "The Oregonian's columnist from just left of funny." :)

author fails and should be sent back to freshman comp.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: loki8481
Because he's a spectacularly bad liar.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
No, I think it's a great thing. His campaign is reaching for new lows each day he opens his mouth.

And just so the mentally challenged are aware, this is political satire. ;)
jpeyton, you're a douchebag.

Oh. That was satirical by the way.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,301
144
106
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: loki8481
Because he's a spectacularly bad liar.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
:thumbsup:
The two of you trying to take the high road when it comes to lying?
I'm from hudson county. I've got a cynicism towards politics and a tolerance for lying on the campaign trail not often seen outside of the shadows of tammany hall.

Accept certain inalienable truths: price will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old. if we're going to have politicians that are going to lie to our faces no matter who we do, would you rather have a snake-oil salesman or someone who's doing it grudgingly out of political necessity?
Hey if a liar becomes POTUS I'd want him to be able to lie to save his life or mine. Because at least on that point I wouldnt have to worry about it.

GWB couldn't pull it off. Any wonder why people hate him so much? Bill Clinton can and still does...any wonder why people still see him in a better light?

If you buy into your own "inalienable truths" then you too would want someone in the office competent to play a game of poker. McCain doesnt strike me as someone that can pull off a bluff.

And since he is lying so much to get elected I think it shows a lack of respect for Americans. Couple the two together, the fact that he cant lie to save the one good side of his face, and the fact that he continually lies to us as voters...I just think he has his own interests at heart.

But hey, its friday, this is really just a crappy article with no point, I was just picking on you and Lupi earlier because I can...but I meant no ill will towards you. so cheers. :beer:
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Sorry, I should have put an asterisk in my own post.

*Article requires >70 IQ to comprehend political satire contained within

Now run back to school.
Funny, of all the people that read it, you're the only person who thought it was satire. Therefore, there are only two conclusions:
1. Everyone else is retarded.
2. You are retarded.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Sorry, I should have put an asterisk in my own post.

*Article requires >70 IQ to comprehend political satire contained within

Now run back to school.
Funny, of all the people that read it, you're the only person who thought it was satire. Therefore, there are only two conclusions:
1. Everyone else is retarded.
2. You are retarded.
I'll go with "you're a retard" for $1000 Alex.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
You mean like Pelosi and the democrats running on a platform of ethics reform and lower gas prices. Now Pelosi is driving the price of oil up 10% in 3 days because of her energy plan. A energy plan she got passed in late in the night.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: demiurge3141
some people here need to hone their satire radars a bit........
I know. This piece is clearly another one aimed at attacking McCain for the never-ending chorus of lies coming from his campaign. But instead of simply talking about them directly, like every major media outlet has already done this week, this writer took a slightly more humorous approach to it.

Next time I'll try removing all the multi-syllabic words so our GOP readers can the content with ease.
 

CottonRabbit

Golden Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,026
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Sorry, I should have put an asterisk in my own post.

*Article requires >70 IQ to comprehend political satire contained within

Now run back to school.
Funny, of all the people that read it, you're the only person who thought it was satire. Therefore, there are only two conclusions:
1. Everyone else is retarded.
2. You are retarded.
No, the satire is quite obvious.

You were that one guy in 10th grade English who came back to class outraged that the teacher had assigned A Modest Proposal right?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,313
11,306
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
Because he's a spectacularly bad liar.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
When he still doesn't stop lying? Of course it is, that erodes public confidence, which a leader must have. Maybe if he would stop lying, but unfortunately, being 100% honest all the time is not a trait that human beings want from the leaders. Sorry if that seems cynical.

Slick Willy was a damned good salesman, wasn't he?

edit: and before anyone accuses the Oregonian's editorial board of being too liberal, please read some of Reinhard. Thanks.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY