Skip to content

BREAKING NEWS: John McCain makes a true statement

September 15, 2008

This just in.

Reports are still coming in … it’s a bit confusing, but … yes … we are now being told about some incredible news … yes, I’m finding out just now: John McCain has said something that is true.

Regarding hurricane Ike, Senator McCain said:

The scope of the destruction is not yet clear, but yesterday I was briefed by U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Texas Governor Rick Perry about the status of their response operation.

That’s a true statement … scope is not yet clear and he was briefed. This statement is in fact not a lie.

This incredible news comes at the perfect time … the McCain/Palin supporters were getting a little worried about the two-week lying binge they’ve been on (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Seriously … if I were an undecided voter (that’s who they are trying to persuade at this point) I would be offended. Do they think people are that stupid?

Wasn’t John McCain about honor, integrity, and straight-talkin’? It’s actually quite sickening to watch. And they keep doing it even as the media (finally) catches on. It will backfire … the independents and undecided voters I know are fiercely against partisan sleaze shenanigans. Aren’t they running on reform now? You know, ending the “politics as usual”? (pssst … their campaign is run by lobbyists).

Some Obama supporters want him to hit back just as hard. It’s fine to hit back hard, but do it with the truth. And the truth now is that John McCain and Sarah Palin are blatant liars who will do anything to win.

Very sad.

UPDATE: Obama hits back with this new ad.

UPDATE2: Some cartoons can say everything that needs to be said so concisely.

UPDATE3: There is so much to read on this subject (all those links I include above) but if you only have time to read one article, read this one by Michael Cohen. Not only does he succinctly summarize the most egregious lies (with links), but he hits the nail squarely on the head with regards to what the McCain campaign is attempting to do:

The McCain campaign seems to be operating under the notion that if their distortions about Barack Obama become part of the campaign discourse, voters will pay less attention to the fact-checking response or dismiss it as the usual he-said-she-said of American politics.

Well said. Over the past few days I’ve been involved in multiple discussions with either McCain supporters, undecided voters, third-party voters, or those who don’t want to say that are indeed dismissing this as ‘politics as usual’. It is not … what they are doing represents a brand new level of ugly.

I apologize to regular readers wanting some geoscience posts … I usually don’t harp on politics too much on this blog, but this is just too damn important to let go.

UPDATE4 (9/17/08): Want to learn all about the biggest lies and what it means and only have five minutes? Don’t feel like reading and want to watch/listen to a news report? Then, watch this report from CNN:

The fact that CNN is devoting a full five minutes to this indicates the facts are indeed catching up to McCain/Palin … this is all they got. Pathetic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About these ads
26 Comments leave one →
  1. September 15, 2008 6:29 am

    Shocking! It must have taken incredible willpower for McCain not to have said something along the lines of:

    “The scope of the destruction is not yet clear, but yesterday I was briefed by U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Texas Governor Rick Perry about the status of their response operation. I should add that this hurricane was caused by the irresponsible government involvement of Democrats like Obama in regulating climate processes.”

  2. September 15, 2008 6:53 am

    At the risk of sounding like a prick, I’d pretty much say that anyone who votes for the McCain/Palin ticket has got to be either 1. a dumbshit or 2. completely divorced from reality.

  3. September 18, 2008 4:03 pm

    I don’t see why federal tax dollars need to go to a program to explain to kids how to stay away from sex predators. Programs like that already exist and have for 30 years now or so. Such a thing, a kindergarden teacher could just go on youtube and find any one of the many “stranger danger” videos along those lines already. Why does everything involve taxpayer money with Obama dammit!?

    Stranger Danger

  4. September 18, 2008 4:55 pm

    quantum flux says: Why does everything involve taxpayer money with Obama dammit!?”

    Where else you gonna get revenue?

  5. September 18, 2008 6:40 pm

    We don’t need to fund things that are essentially free anyway.

  6. September 18, 2008 6:52 pm

    quantum flux … this particular example of a child-safety program has a page on their site about how to find funding … if it’s “essentially free” why would one need funds?

    anyway, the point of this post is that the ad was a vile distortion of the facts … watching McCain campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds try and defend it is hilarious … they know it’s a lie, they don’t care … defend it if you like

  7. September 18, 2008 7:21 pm

    It seems I’m in the business of defending my political stance these days. I dislike being called “stupid” just because I’m a fiscal conservative. Anyhow, I think that program is entirely fundable on the local level for people living in Illinois.

  8. September 18, 2008 7:35 pm

    Okay, fair enough, I’ll admit that McCain/Palin are lying on quite a lot of things. So is the Barack/Biden campaign too though. Lies almost always happen in politics. Good point Bryan.

  9. September 18, 2008 8:14 pm

    quantum flux … you’ve bought into the ‘well, they are lying too’ meme … I’m not saying that Obama’s campaign is not doing negative ads, but the McCain campaign took it to a new level.

    If you are a fiscal conservative, then vote for Barr or Paul — McCain is now Mr. Regulator-Reformer. All the sudden he’s an economic populist. Except, then the next day he hates regulation … wait, what is he for again?

  10. September 18, 2008 8:20 pm

    quantum flux … if you identify with traditional (i.e., pre-neocon, pre-religious-right) conservatism, which celebrates pragmatism, fiscal responsibility, not being assholes, etc., then you should read this eloquent article by former National Review boardmember Wick Allison.

  11. September 19, 2008 10:23 am

    Gosh, is the government or are the corporations better spenders of money when it comes to R&D? Doesn’t private enterprise sort of necessitate the improvement of the economy, and hence taxing small business ($200,000+, the “upper 10%”) would stifle overall progress by reducing both supply and demand?

  12. September 19, 2008 10:52 am

    quantum flux … what are you referring to? You mention R&D and small businesses in this comment …?

  13. September 19, 2008 12:43 pm

    That last comment of mine was off topic, sorry. I was just thinking about how successful/necessary the federal programs that build interstate roads and hydroelectric dams and canals can be. Perhaps a little socialism, when properly done, is a good thing. Although, when you get down to it, when federal programs are left running over long periods of time they eventually just become corrupt money holes since there is no profit in them (Obama wants to bring about change, meaning he wants to implement more federal programs). I think, however, that at some point the private sector has to expand into and take over these federal programs in order to meet the demand while eliminating corrupt spending. Corporations don’t spend money they don’t have because then they go bankrupt, as compared to government run programs where bankruptsy results in federal rescue.

  14. September 19, 2008 2:24 pm

    quantum flux … I more-or-less agree with you … certainly I don’t think many are proposing full nationalization of the economy, it’s always going to be some mixture.

    But, to me (and I’m no expert by any means) we swung so far to a truly unregulated (or where it was regulated, done poorly/ineffectively) that now we are going to pay the price. The price of that “free” market is overcompensating by being potentially over-regulated down the line. Right now it seems that gains are privatized and losses socialized … this is unsustainable … obviously.

    I’m getting a bit tired of these free market theoreticians talking about how it’s such a better system … where is the proof?! We tried it … the deregulation frenzy that started in the ’90s (under the Clinton admin and Repub congress), which continued into the Bush admin (w/ Repub congress) put all this chaos into motion. McCain today actually tried to blame it on Obama! The guy is a joke.

    Of course we don’t want a fully nationalized economy (history has shown that is a disaster), but I’m afraid our reaction to this complete and utter failure of a too-little-regulated economy might be just that. A short-sighted ‘wild west’ free economy does not work. And now we are going to pay the price for who knows how long.

    On a more specific point … do you think the private sector can take care of natural hazard assessment? The Gingrich congress in the ’90s actually came close to getting rid of the USGS! No one has ever demonstrated to me how the private sector would effectively study, manage, respond, mitigate natural hazards. How would they make money?

  15. September 19, 2008 3:15 pm

    Well, it is a group effort of many government agencies that is involved in natural hazards, not just the USGS. NASA, FEMA, NOAA, the EPA, Forest Service, the Army Corpse of Engineers, etc. I suppose that by shifting responsibilities around, that private sector could take over some functions of any one of those agencies. The reason those agencies are around is to provide a service to the public, but sometimes they just take on ridiculous projects that don’t even get completed or that have no real purpose (i.e. NASA sending people to Mars when robots can do the same job and better).

  16. September 19, 2008 3:18 pm

    But, how would the private sector make money … they need to increase value to shareholders … how would they do that?

  17. September 19, 2008 3:20 pm

    Is it a lie when McCain points out that studying bear populations by using hair follical DNA testing in Montana is a wasteful USGS project?

  18. September 19, 2008 3:27 pm

    Insurance companies are in the business of probabilities. They make the bet that you will get a flood if you live below sea level in New Orleans and so the cost of flood insurance is huge there. Consumer beware in that case, but in higher ground the flood insurance is affordible. The few that can afford flood insurance living below sea level are repayed by the many that could afford flood insurance on higher grounds. Nobody should be allowed to build their home in a flood plain though, but apparently there is a market for that, so hey.

  19. September 19, 2008 3:38 pm

    qf says: “Is it a lie when McCain points out that studying bear populations by using hair follical DNA testing in Montana is a wasteful USGS project?”

    I don’t know if it’s a lie, but sounds awfully irrelevant and insignificant to what we are talking about.

  20. September 19, 2008 3:40 pm

    Re your insurance comment … I don’t get it.

    If the private sector is studying hazards how do they create wealth? What is the business model? Where do the earnings come from? How do they make a profit?

  21. September 19, 2008 3:55 pm

    Not everybody who purchase disaster insurance actually experience a disaster. I could sell you asteroid and lightning insurance and your odds of getting hit by an asteroid or struck by lightning are miniscule. In fact, I could sell that to a thousand people and make a huge profit. Maybe one does get hit by an asteroid and maybe 2 get struck by lightning, okay, but still the amount of money that the 1000 people paid me dwarfs the amount of money that I award to the 2 or 3 people who got injured. Hence, you would want to invest in my company because I’m making huge profits. The principles are the same for most insurance companies. Or even better yet, if you could invest in casinoes or open a casinoe you’d be hugely rich too based on just playing the odds.

  22. September 19, 2008 4:19 pm

    Back again…. okay, so the insurance companies would definantly have a vested interest in natural disaster prediction (especially if the odds change due to climate change). They could take their profits and definantly invest in research in that department. I know an El Nino type event would clearly change the flood odds (based on rain patterns) and people living in drought regions may actually need to buy 1000 year flood insurance as a result. The key to success would be in predicting how the weather would change, and that would entail many different competing insurance companies all doing their research and making predictions.

  23. September 20, 2008 8:55 am

    so, someone has to purchase a certain company’s insurance or they are shit out of luck when something happens … if one company is there w/ their helicopters and rescuers, they’ll have to check the status of your policy before they save you

  24. September 20, 2008 9:12 pm

    I don’t know why it is so expensive to send out a helicopter or ambulence to rescue people who are in the middle of nowhere, but maybe competition could drive down the cost of that. Perhaps people who do risky things or live in high risk zones ought to pay for “emergency rescue insurance”. Heck, there are a lot less people needing to be rescued than there are people who don’t need to be rescued, and I’ll bet that by making rescue insurance cheap for everybody (but the cost of the insurance goes up significantly for people who do get rescued), there would be profits in such a business.

  25. September 24, 2008 9:01 pm

    thats exactly what mccain wants; either obama joins, which will give mccain the upper hand, OR obama rejects, standing strong to his campaign, and having the whole country turn on him because they all think he doesnt care about the financial crisis. Its like mccain has checkmate on obama. so either way mccain will come out looking like an angel. i hope the people of this country are not that gullible!!!!!! McCain should have left obama out of it! and if obama wanted to help out then he would have. NOT COOL MR MCCAIN!!!!!!!!!

Trackbacks

  1. daveschumaker.net · Atttacking McCain on his lies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 107 other followers