09/20/2008 (2:58 pm)
What began so long ago as the most entertaining campaign season in memory has turned ugly, and in a painfully predictable way. It’s not just that the candidates are slugging it out in “hit” ads, though that’s happening. It’s that the press has decided that it’s found the way to beat John McCain, and they plan to beat him by changing his image from “Maverick” to “Liar.”
I was trying to take inventory of what the Obama camp claims McCain has been lying about yesterday, in the wake of an unusually vicious Obama ad responding to BornAliveFacts.org’s ad featuring abortion survivor Gianna Jessen (see the ad here, and Michelle Malkin’s discussion here.) What I found was that major news sources, like Time, Newsweek, and the Washington Post, have picked up the Obama campaign’s knee-jerk response to all McCain ads and turned it into a theme: “Why is McCain lying?”
It’s no mystery why they’re doing it. Obama has been caught lying so many times that we’re almost immune to new instances; we think, “Oh, he’s at it again” and we tune it out. The list seems endless. He lied about his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Lied outright. Said he was proud of him, then said he’d never heard the things we were so agitated about. Bullshit, Barry. You heard them, and they sounded normal to you. He lied about his relationship with felon Tony Rezko; he produced favors for him through city hall and the legislature, and received favors in return. He lied about his relationship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; he said he was just a guy who lived down the block, but it turns out they did the Annenberg Challenge more or less together for five years. He lied about his stance on Iraq, he lied about his achievements in the Illinois legislature, he lied about his votes on born-alive infants, he lied about what his neighborhood activism achieved… the man’s instinct is to lie to protect himself, and if that doesn’t work, then he changes his story. The public learning about this has hurt Obama considerably.
So the press has to change the momentum and the message, and they’ve chosen to turn on Mav. In just one example among several, Joe Klein at Time Magazine published this utterly inaccurate piece characterizing McCain’s campaign as beyond the pale of ordinary political fudging. Similar examples can be found in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and various Democratic blogs. From Klein’s piece:
McCain’s lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent’s character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth.
It’s difficult for me to think that he actually believes this. Certainly yesterday’s howler from the Washington Post, in which they had to debunk their own news reports in order to claim an inaccuracy in McCain’s ad, illustrates how ready some media sources are to burn their own credibility in order to attack McCain’s. Klein’s article in Time is only slightly less laughable. We know they’re in the tank for Obama, but it’s disturbing that they’re willing to sell their integrity for him.
I’ve been watching McCain’s ads, and if they’re inaccurate in any way at all, it’s certainly not in any way that’s unusual for hard-hitting political advertising. What Klein seems to be complaining about is that McCain’s ads don’t take Obama’s campaign promises at face value. McCain, for example, claims Obama plans to raise our taxes, whereas Obama says he’s going to cut taxes to the middle class. As is usual for political advertising, both are accurate in their own sense. The marginal rates in Obama’s tax plan are lower than the official baseline of future tax revenues, but higher than what we’re paying today, so one can say either without lying. He plans to tax corporations, which are certain to pass along their taxes to all consumers. He plans to engage in copious social engineering by manipulating tax incentives, which inevitably distorts market behaviors and produces social dislocation. Worse, his promised initiatives will require far more funding than he’s accounted for in his plans to raise additional funds, so it’s easy to predict that he’ll have to raise taxes if he actually tries to do all that he’s planning. And of course, all this analysis rests on the assumption that one can trust Obama to do what he claims he’s going to do, and the McCain campaign would suggest that Obama’s past behavior, which includes support for tax increases, is a better predictor of his future behavior than is his campaign web site — and I would agree. All of this supports a plausible conclusion that an Obama presidency would require higher taxes.
The point in this instance is not that McCain’s ad is Gospel, where Obama’s contrary position is a Lie From the Pit of Hell. The point is that this is ordinary political advertising stating a candidate’s conclusions, not some new, nefarious depth of prevarication as Klein wants us to believe.
Or take Klein’s complaint about McCain’s ad mentioning Obama’s support for “comprehensive sex education” for students in kindergarten. Klein objects that the support was for instruction concerning inappropriate touching, which is what the Obama campaign said. That’s a nice thing to say, but the actual legislation is very, very clear, and it says “comprehensive sex education for K through 12.” The only mention of age-appropriateness in the legislation applies to age-appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Whether you think that any mention of STDs is age-appropriate for kindergarteners (I don’t,) this clearly goes beyond protection against inappropriate touching. Obama might be speaking truly about his intentions at the time (though we have good reason from the legislation itself not to believe him,) but McCain is entirely within his rights to quote the law verbatim, for crying out loud. Byron York has a full discussion at The Corner.
What we’re watching is a planned, deliberate screeching inversion. The Democrats are counting on support from the national press to produce a preponderance of firepower, overwhelming the McCain campaign’s ability to control the narrative by flooding the airwaves with their new and completely manufactured complaint about McCain’s illusive mendacity.
It’s not as though Democrats slandering Republicans is something new. Character assassination is about the only thing Democrats do well, and the list of slandered Republicans is long: Robert Bork, Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, Ann Coulter, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. Nor is press bias anything new. We’ve been pointing out for years how the press has taken sides, and examples of uneven treatment according to party affiliation fall into one’s hand like ripe apples from a tree.
What’s new is the size and virulence of it. It’s like we’re living in one of those horror flicks, where we’ve had the same pack of wild animals roaming the neighborhood at night for years. At first, they were a nuisance tearing up gardens. Then, they grew, and started threatening our pets. Then we started having to keep the kids close, ’cause a pack of them cornered somebody’s child. But now they’ve grown so big that we’re under siege in our own homes, having to board the windows and hunker behind doors with shotguns. The monsters have been feeding, and they’ve grown huge.
We don’t know yet whether the Obama campaign will get away with it. We do know that the national press corps intends to help them get away with it if they can. These are hard times for friends of liberty.
13 Comments »
Comment by Randy Allgaier
I must say that you have an interesting idea of the truth. Your post here and on my blog seem to be talking points from the extreme right. Are you sure you aren’t the nut bag Anne Coulter? I find the fact that you use very partisan sites to “fact check”
Your comment on my blog about Obama’s support of sex education is laughable. Not one intelligent analysis thinks that this ad is true,
The ad claims “Obama’s one accomplishment” in the realm of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.”
It’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be “age-appropriate” for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:
SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.
The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:
SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide
for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. … Course material and instruction shall teach pupils … how to say no to unwanted sexual advances … and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.
The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.
Obama is often quoted as saying that when it comes to sex education in public schools, “it’s the right thing to do … to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” placing an emphasis on the word “appropriate.” But Obama has also said he does not support, “explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.”
In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles:
Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be “age-appropriate” sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is “age-appropriate.”
Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.
Besides the Obama-Keyes race, this allegation also surfaced during this year’s party primaries when Mitt Romney claimed Obama supported sex education for five-year-olds.
The ad claims the bill was Obama’s “one accomplishment.” This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past “go” in the Senate. So it was not an “accomplishment” at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments.
He was a cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, which allowed for an increase in the number of Chicago charter schools and required the Chicago Board of Education to enter into a formal partnership with the Chicago Teachers Union to “advance the Chicago Public Schools to the next level of education reform.” He was also a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren’t U.S. citizens
On the federal level, Obama sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007. All three amendments were passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and became law. One amendment proposed language that would create a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. He also proposed language to support summer learning programs and boost their math curricula. And he put forward a requirement that women and minorities be represented in the President’s Science and Technology Summit. Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless
The ad also features three cherry-picked quotes from the media, highlighting negative comments about Obama’s record and ignoring those directed at McCain. The announcer quotes Education Week contributing blogger David Hoff, saying, “Education Week says Obama ‘hasn’t made a significant mark on education.’ ” The quote is accurate. But the ad leaves out a quote Hoff gathered from Arizona’s Casa Grande Elementary School Superintendent Frank Davidson:
Davidson (via Education Week): I don’t think [McCain] has a strong track record of putting education at the top of his priorities.
McCain had used the information about Obama before, and in response, blogger Hoff encouraged readers of the magazine’s election blog to “Read the Obama story and the McCain story and you can decide who has a better track record on K-12 issues.” We agree, you should.
The ad then quotes a July 7 editorial from The Washington Post, which said “that he’s ‘elusive’ on accountability.” Those words did appear in The Post’s July 7 editorial. At the time, McCain had no education plan to critique, but later, in August, The Post revisited both candidates’ proposals and said McCain’s was “both late in coming and still a work in progress.” It also said “of the two, Mr. Obama has given the issue more attention.”
The last quote used in McCain’s ad is attributed to the Chicago Tribune and says that Obama is “a ‘staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.’ ” This is actually from a piece by Steve Chapman, former associate editor of The New Republic and contributing writer to Slate and the conservative publications The Weekly Standard and The National Review. The piece isn’t a Chicago Tribune editorial at all, though it’s made to appear that way in the ad. And Chapman, none too pleased about how his opinion piece was featured in the ad, responded in a Sept. 10 Tribune blog entry with this:
Chapman: … the ad itself doesn’t bother explaining how the candidates differ on school vouchers, the subject of my column. Instead, it insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught how to use condoms before they’re taught to read. Right. And Joe Biden eats puppies for breakfast.
Now shall we talk about the brain addled Mr. McCain who can’t tell a Sunni from a Shia, who said in the beginning days of this week that our economy is fundamentally sound (and then gave a pathetic explanation that what those fundamentals are are the workers. PLEASE!) He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, he has a history of being a deregulator and now is talking about nothing but regulations) And then there is the completely inept Governor Palin who repeats the lie about saying “Thanks but No Thanks” to the bridge to Nowhere.
It might be time for you to look beyond Fox News and the National Review for facts.
Comment by BD
Read the first comment – what a steaming pile of dung …..
I’ve been watching the press go further & further in the tank for the Dem. nominee since 1992, when most of them swore they “wouldn’t allow George H.W. Bush to get away with” running a campaign like he did against Dukakis.
IMO, the difference this time is they’re so invested in the Dem. nominee:
* Clinton in ’96 – an obvious sleaze and he was never really in trouble with Dole as the Republican.
* Gore in ’00 – dirtied up by his association with Clinton & such a stiff in his own right ….
* Kerry on ’04 – Lurch just wasn’t very exciting, even against a President they hated.
This time, they’re in love with the narrative – “A BLACK PRESIDENT!!!!!! AND HE’S CLEAN AND WELL SPOKEN TOO!!!!!!”
People who have something to be “for” are more enthusiastic than those who only have something to be “against.”
Comment by Phil
That it takes you 1500 words to attempt to rebut a 55-word ad, says everything that needs to be said.
What’s missing from your expansive dissertation, though, is the evidence that Obama did not support “Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.” It’s missing because he did, in fact, support such legislation — and that’s the only significant claim in the ad. Ergo, the ad is true.
It could properly be described as Obama’s “one accomplishment” regarding education if it was the only significant education legislation to get passed along to the Illinois Senate by the Health and Human Services committee while Obama chaired that committee.
I infer from the date of his co-sponsorship of CERA that it was one of the bones Emil Jones threw him in his attempt to make Obama US Senator, and could only be called Obama’s accomplishment if one ignores actual work on the bill, which was written, championed, and passed by others. Obama’s name on it was only a token.
I’ll grant you that Obama proposed three “everybody agrees” amendments in the US Senate regarding education, though calling those “accomplishment” stretches the word pretty far. The ad researchers apparently focused on the Illinois Senate, and to be completely accurate, should have specified “in the Illinois legislature,” upping the word count to 59. So, yeah, they got that wrong. If that’s the only substance in your complaint, though, you should have stayed home.
The rest of your 1500 words were simply an ink cloud to obscure the fact that your claim that the ad lied was false. I’m not going to waste my breath addressing them. Go ahead and vote for Obama if you don’t mind a President who’s not competent to run a medium-sized school district and lies every time someone brings up who he really is, but stop selling your integrity to elect him. McCain’s ad was true. Your objections to it are irrelevancies. And the 40 million Frenchmen who interpret the ad the way you do are, likewise, making a false claim.
Comment by Randy Allgaier
Well, actually most of what I posted – starting with the third paragraph is directly taken from the non-partisan FactCheck.org, so the fact that you attribute it to being “an ink cloud to obscure the fact that your claim that the ad lied was false” is rather illuminating.
I don’t disagree with you that Obama’s campaign has been guilty of mistruths but I think the record is clear that Mr. McCain’s are a more often and more egregious.
Starting this week, the San Francisco Chronicle is publishing a compilation of “lies, half-truths and contradictions uttered by BOTH of the presidential campaigns and their supporters during the previous week.
The only reason that my answer was so lengthy was my use of the piece from FactCheck.org.
I certainly don’t mind differing opinions and actually I like hearing alternative positions- as long as they are well researched. My only reason for my response to you is that I abhor the personal attacks that are being waged. Senator Obama does not impugn Senator McCain’s character, although he could, but Senator McCain has decided to play the Roveian politics that were used against him in 2000 and I find that sad.
Can we both agree that Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s campaign are guilty of some distortions. But I sense that you and I both have a horse in this race and maybe we should all rely on non-partisan sources to assess the truth as much as possible. I have antempted to do so, I hope you will as well.
Comment by Phil
Can we both agree that Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s campaign are guilty of some distortions.
I’m not going to play the parity game, because I don’t see parity. I have yet to see a significant distortion from the McCain camp. I do see hard-hitting ads that focus on very specific information, for which it is possible to bring in explanatory or exculpatory information in a larger discussion — but that’s the nature of 30-second political ads. I mentioned the “55-word” count because that’s part of the point: there’s only so much detail one can include in a 30-second, 50-word video. (Added after the fact: allow me to observe that I particularly hate this sort of ad, and deplore the fact that elections are decided by sound bites rather than sound analysis. But they are, it’s a fact.)
I have not done a broad analysis of Obama’s ads. I do know that Obama’s ad responding to Gianna Jessen’s appeal from BornAliveTruth.org contained at least 2 outright falsehoods: he denied his opposition to the Illinois born-alive legislation, and he tried to link Jessen’s ad to the McCain campaign. I have not seen similar falsehoods in McCain’s advertising.
I have, moreover, seen a number of ugly tactics assigned to surrogates probably by the Obama campaign, although it’s difficult to prove it. The Clinton campaign noted the same while running against Obama. The mob-rule tactics attempting to shut down dissent are particularly troubling; I’ve written about some of those incidents here on my blog, here, here, and here. The flood of outright lies about Gov. Palin during the weeks following the Republican Convention was appalling — and I’m fairly sure at least some of them came from inside the Obama campaign. And then, of course, there is Obama’s long string of implausible denials of associations with radicals of various stripes; the truth is that Obama is a radical himself, but wants to hide it because he knows America will never elect a radical to high office. Barack Obama is not an honest man.
Now, if you’ll do a little search of this blog, you’ll discover that I don’t think John McCain is all that honest a man, either. Honesty is an odd thing; most of us are dishonest at some level, so what we’re comparing here is a difference of degree more than one of type. However, I perceive that Obama is dishonest at a more foundational level than McCain. That sounds like I’m splitting hairs, though I don’t think I am. I hope to write about this and explain at greater depth, perhaps this week. Stay tuned.
maybe we should all rely on non-partisan sources to assess the truth as much as possible.
I would like nothing better. The problem is that sources that are supposed to be non-partisan, and which claim to be non-partisan, have become increasingly partisan over the decades, and thus unreliable. That’s the reason media bias is such a serious matter; when a large body of sources claiming to be neutral actually take sides (while continuing to claim neutrality), nothing can be trusted.
My answer for the time being is to find as many primary source documents as I can. That’s the best I can do — find original sources and use my head.
I hold the Annenberg Foundation in high regard, but the factcheck.org analysis of McCain’s education ad is simply wrong.
Comment by RM
And the beat goes on. Circa 1992, the press was extremely partisan in their fawning treatment of Bill Clinton. Trouble is, only a few voices in the wilderness like Rush Limbaugh and Brent Bozell were calling them on it. At that time, the so called main stream media truly controlled the content and terms of the debate.
As more sources of news emerged over the years, that changed. And many of the traditional news sources are now struggling for survival and in danger of becoming more obsolete than dinosaurs.
Incredibly, (to me at least) they react not by rethinking their approach and perhaps simply reporting the news in a somewhat fair and evenhanded manner, or maybe hiring a few conservative commentators or hosts or journalists, but by digging in deeper and deeper. Now they seem almost to function as a PR arm of their preferred candidate, Obama; and any pretense of objectivity is virtually gone. It is almost as if they know deep down that their day in the sun may be coming to an end, but if they can somehow get their guy into office, maybe, just maybe, it will all turn out all right for them.
I’m anticipating the screeching and howling of the press will increase over the next two months, reaching a crescendo near Election Day.
And if Obama wins, peace and tranquility will reign. Bad economic stories will be replaced with excited stories about the coming Obama boom and expansion. Any bad news will be treated as purging of the last of the Bush regime’s “failed policies”.
If though, somehow, some way, McCain pulls this off… I really don’t know what the left will do. They may truly implode. In all seriousness, when I think of the seething rage of the left, the unbridled fury, if Obama somehow does not win, it’s a bit unnerving. And a bit wonderful too.
Comment by galynn
Well, Phil. May I just say, Congratulations! You’ve made it big time. To have an Obamamaniac wax so prolifically says SO MUCH!! Truthsayer! That be YOU! Keep it up!!
(Author’s note: I bearded that particular lion in his own den, and he returned the favor. See The Alligator Report, where I posted as “philwynk.”)
Comment by Phil
If though, somehow, some way, McCain pulls this off… I really don’t know what the left will do.
We’ll get a replay of BDS, only worse. I genuinely expect civil war within my lifetime, I’m not making that up. And I genuinely wish it was plausible to partition the US into two nations to avoid it, though I can’t really see any practical way to do that.
Comment by darkhorse
I fully applaud the Founders in their granting the people the ability to steer the country in the direction most of us see fit for it to go…whichever direction that happens to be at the time.
I genuinely expect civil war within my lifetime, I’m not making that up. And I genuinely wish it was plausible to partition the US into two nations to avoid it, though I can’t really see any practical way to do that.”
The brilliance of the Founders is that they foresaw that a wide varieties of ideas would be tried…and some found wanting. Why should your apparent disgust for those who disagree with you lead you to desire a separate nation? This is a puzzling comment…maybe you could clarify…I fully admit I may be misunderstanding you.
Comment by Phil
Why should your apparent disgust for those who disagree with you lead you to desire a separate nation? This is a puzzling comment…maybe you could clarify…I fully admit I may be misunderstanding you.
I thought I had discussed this already here. In fact, I’m sure I did. But we’ll do it again. Here goes:
The authors of our Constitution recognized that political differences would occur, but based the government on the presupposition that ultimately, there is only one standard of virtue accepted among civilized people. The government works perfectly well to arbitrate different approaches to achieve similar goals.
The problem today is that there are two completely separate and very different moral systems competing for control, and they’re trying to achieve very different goals. One values individual liberty, private property, and the power of individuals to make their own life choices, but expects the government to maintain a watch on public morals (we’ll call this Judeo-Christian). The other values sexual libertarianism, but expects the government to enforce what they call economic justice on all citizens, and to do whatever is in government’s power to shield individuals from the inequalities and inherent difficulties of life (we’ll call this Modernist-Utopian).
The governmental structure of the US is completely inadequate to governing groups with wildly divergent moral systems. The result of the attempt is either schizophrenic laws (sometimes attempting to achieve one group’s goals, sometimes the other’s, and sometimes both simultaneously) or domination and perceived tyranny. If we continue the attempt, war is not possible, it’s inevitable.
My advocating partition comes from a desire to avoid war. Of course, that may be a vain hope; I’m pretty sure that if we were to partition the nation, the Modernist Utopian nation would attempt either to conquer the Judeo-Christian one in order to coerce them into conformity, or would partner with the rest of the world to hammer them into conformity through sanctions. Conformity seems to be their energizing imperative.
Comment by RM
I often wonder. At this point I would still guess there are enough people of good will to prevent an actual civil war from happening. However, I do feel there is the possibility, even likelihood, of large scale civil disobedience, rioting, etc. (no justice, no peace) at some point in time. The seeds are sown, the precedents for violence based on an “end justifies whatever means neccessary” are there and have been used before.
I look back at the burning buildings on college campuses, the takeovers of college administration buildings, the 1968 convention, Angela Davis, George Jackson, all that. And I see some disturbing similarities to today’s emerging cultural zeitegeist.
When I read a more pessimistic outlook by a long term observer like you, it is disturbing. At this juncture, I see the left as like a giant dam standing guard over a stagnant river. The dam is still a mighty structure, but it is decayed, spouting leaks in all directions, and possibly on the verge of collapsing. All the while the repairmen of the media, academia, Hollywood, etc. are working ever more desperately to keep the collapse from happening. If it breaks the river will be filled with fresh, clean, flowing water. But the stewards of the left wing have about half the people convinced that there will be a disaster if the dam breaches. So they continue to pay the repairmen.
Will “The One” be able to repair the dam for good? I dunno. Some people see liberalism as a dying philosophy giving its last gasps. I personally think it may be on the verge of a comeback which may put us in the woods for years. Hopefully the result will not be a civil war.
Comment by MCCAIN/PALIN 08 or PALIN 012
It’s true that Sarah Palin does have the most executive experience
of all the candidates in this election. This experience includes
“spreading the wealth” (see: Alaska’s Windfall Profits Tax),
“abuse of power” (see: Troopergate), “questionable expenditures”
(see: Family travel expenses, hair and wardrobe costs).
But let us not get caught up in the here and now.
Let us journey through the past darkly:
From Lil’ Sarah Palin’s 4th Grade portfolio:
DEMOCRATS = DEMOCRACY
As in “the democratically elected government of…”
REPUBLICANS = REPUBLIC
As in The People’s Republic of China
The People’s Republic of Cuba
I hope to grow up to: Live in a FREE Alaska and marry Joe Vogel,
the leader of the Alaskan Independence Party.
(Author’s note: we are certainly approaching the election date, as this sort of vicious nonsense is proliferating.)
Comment by Phil
From Lil’ Sarah Palin’s 4th Grade portfolio:
So, are we supposed to be appalled that a fourth grader had an incorrect notion of the meanings of political parties’ names? or are we supposed to draw meaning from her errors? I’m not sure which you intend; I wouldn’t be caught dead implying either one.
This experience includes
“spreading the wealth” (see: Alaska’s Windfall Profits Tax)
A person who attempts to conflate Marxian redistribution of wealth with capitalistic distribution of profits to the owners of the resource, either lacks the ability to distinguish between political systems, or intends to deceive others who lack that ability. Which are you?
Regarding the rest, don’t make us laugh. If that’s the worst you can say about Gov Palin after dozens of researchers have scoured the state of Alaska, she must be remarkably clean.