"We have created a system where there is not a lot of shame in stretching the truth," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
From paragraphs two and three of that same article:
"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."
Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited.
And in the fourth paragraph we read this:
As the presidential campaign moves into a final, heated stretch, untrue accusations and rumors have started to swirl at a pace so quick that they become regarded as fact before they can be disproved. A number of fabrications about Palin's policies and personal life, for instance, have circulated on the Internet since she joined the Republican ticket.
And by paragraph five we finally see the "L" word wrote:
Palin and John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, have been more aggressive in recent days in repeating what their opponents say are outright lies. Almost every day, for instance, McCain says rival Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000.
It would be useful to know what percentage of families earn less than $250,000 to get an idea of the extent to which we can just whether or not Palin and McCain ARE repeating outright lies (as is claimed by their opponents); to evaluate the extent to which Palin and McCain are lying on this particular issue. But the Post apparently want its reader to look the information up. Or perhaps the importance of the fact of how many families earn less than $250,000 was not grasped by the Post's Jonathon Weisman, who wrote this column.
In the next paragraph, we learn of a taboo:
Fed up, the Obama campaign broke a taboo on Monday and used the "L-word" of politics to say that the McCain campaign was lying about the Bridge to Nowhere.
I wonder whose taboo was broken. If a political candidate, or a political party, or a political campaign LIES, shouldn't that be news? Shouldn't such LIES be reported? Wouldn't it go to the issue of credibility? One might think.
Next paragraph, PLEASE:
Nevertheless, with McCain's standing in the polls surging, aides say he is not about to back down from statements he believes are fundamentally true, such as the anecdote about the bridge.
In other words, if McCain believes a lie to be FUNDAMENTALLY TRUE, then he will not back down. It's all about McCain's fundamental beliefs. This would, of course, make McCain a straight shooter. Thank you Jonathan Weisman, for including that anecdote about McCain's standing in the polls surging. Because that too might explain the man's ability to countenance a lie.
Finally, we come to a truth teller:
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."
SHE'S NEW !
SHE'S POPULAR IN ALASKA !!
SHE'S AN INSURGENT !!! (wtf is THIS?)
She's 44 years old. That's not new.
She's popular in Alaska (and has been for a couple of years). That's not new.
She's an insurgent. Words fail me. Thus, from Miriam Webster's Online Dictionary;
in-sur-gent
noun
1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government ;
especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Exactly WHICH policies and decisions of the republican party is Governor Palin acting contrary to?
