Spokesman On McCain Strategy of Campaign Lies
From NBC's First Read ...
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."
Basing a campaign for high office on a strategy of deliberate lies is not an issue of tactics. It calls into question the character of the candidate and his fitness for office.
--Josh Marshall
Truly Must-Read
I've been meaning for a while to write a post explaining just why Trooper-Gate matters -- a lot. And I will. But for now read this piece just out from the Times on Palin's governing style. In a different way it tells the same story -- a small-minded person who populates her administration with cronies and grade-school friends, fires those who dare to criticize her and uses the power of her office to pursue personal vendettas. In other words, someone in the habit of abusing official power who should not be let within a mile of being president.
Late Update: The Post, meanwhile, has a story about Palin's tenure as mayor. Gist: The position has limited responsibilities; she hired a city administrator to take over a lot of those; and her tenure was highly divisive. And the same pattern of hiring cronies.
--Josh Marshall
Interesting Question
If John McCain were still in the Navy what consequences might he face for being caught telling a long series of lies?
--Josh Marshall
Grading On A Curve
Remember how Al Gore's alleged and largely non-existent 'exaggerations' became a staple narrative of the 2000 campaign? Reed Hundt asks why the most of the press still seems largely indifferent to John McCain's repeated lies throughout this campaign.
--Josh Marshall
Like I Said, Morally Unfit
From TPM Reader BK ...
It seems to me that the lying and exaggerating that has been done by the mccain campaign either from his lips or with his approval has a moral dimension that is not being discussed. No one is questioning McCains physical courage. But lying is an immoral act, one that you cannot get "forced into" by acts of others.If there is a sustainable link between McCain, Palin, Bush and Cheney, it is their willingness to lie to get what they want. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war they wished to wage and they have been deceptive about many of their other policies. And the way an Administration runs takes its direction from the top. Is there really any doubt that if McCain and Palin are willing to lie about themselves and their opponents in an effort to get elected that they will continue to lie to the American public about there plans and policies.
Campaigns offer a direct view into how a candidate will run a large complex organization. McCains true colors,,,,,his true moral convictions....are being demonstrated for all of us to see. We have seen this ends based strategy before and we know it never turns out well for us.
I quite agree. This campaign has shown that while we know McCain has physical courage, he has bad moral character. And in this respect he's found a true partner in Sarah Palin.
--Josh Marshall
Just Gets Better and Better ...
Turns out Palin didn't quite shut down the Bridge to Nowhere after all. She held on to $73 million federal dollars for a scaled down Bridge to Nowhere.
Late Update: Extra bonus McCain Lie (tm) unearthed! Down in the aforelinked article McCain spokesman Peter Feldman says this: "The fact is that once Governor Palin was elected and had an opportunity to look closely at the project, she killed it. She fought for Congress to kill the provision, but they sent the funds anyway. Palin fired the kill shot by not using a dime of that money on the bridge. (emphasis added)" Feldman appears now to be saying that Palin either campaigned against the original earmark or campaigned for it to be killed after it was approved. To the best of my knowledge I have never even heard them claim this before. But keep the timeline in mind. The Bridge to Nowhere earmark was killed in 2005, a year before Palin even ran for governor. And when she ran in 2006 she ran as a strong pro-Bridge candidate. So when exactly is Feldman claiming she campaigned against the bridge earmark? When she was Mayor of Wasilla?
--Josh Marshall
Creeping Flanaganism 1.0
McCain-Palin caught making up crowd-size estimates for campaign rallies.
--Josh Marshall
Tommy Flanagan
From The Boston Globe ...
Sarah Palin's visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate's campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America.Following her selection last month as John McCain's running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin's foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone.
But in response to queries about the details of her trip, campaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border when she visited Khabari Alawazem Crossing, also known as "K-Crossing," on July 25, 2007.
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Saturday Roundup
The Boston Globe does some digging on Palin, reveals her to be a big-spending tax-hiker who hasn't actually travelled to the countries that the McCain campaign has said she has. That and other political news in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Weekend Entertainment Video
Sarah Palin struggles to explain why she's been saying she said "Thanks. But No Thanks" even though she didn't ...
Note particularly how she explains wearing this "Nowhere, Alaska" t-shirt when running in support of the Bridge in 2006 ...
--Josh Marshall
More on How Gibson Did
Todd Gitlin has more on Charlie Gibson's visit with Sarah Palin in Alaska.
--Josh Marshall
Very Gently Put
From the NYT ...
Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama's record and positions.
--Josh Marshall
Oy
You and I may have seen Sarah Palin caught off guard in the Charlie Gibson interview because she'd never heard of the "Bush Doctrine". But now we learn her seeming ignorance was actually a penetrating insight into the ambiguities of the "Bush Doctrine."
--Josh Marshall
Revise and Extend ...
I haven't yet seen the entire interview or interviews. So I'll reserve final judgment. But as you know I was very skeptical and fairly hard on Charlie Gibson in advance of his interview with Sarah Palin. I still think this was a terrible way to interview a person trying to be one heart beat away from the presidency (more like a celebrity interview than a live-to-tape interview on a Sunday morning show). But Gibson was more probing and his questions more substantive than I expected.
--Josh Marshall
Lying Sarah (Caught Red-Handed Edition)
Sarah Palin ducks and weaves as she's caught out on the Bridge to Nowhere lie ...
TPM Reader MM adds some thoughts ...
She introduced herself to the world stage by delivering a speech that she knew was a lie.What kind of a person does that?
What does that say about her moral character?
How can the American people believe anything she says from here?
That was what she presented as evidence A#1 of her stature as a reformer!
I mean...
WTF?
I mean, she's as bad as McCain ...
--Josh Marshall
Original Liar John McCain
It seems like the English language isn't big enough to contain the lies of John McCain. McCain has now launched a Spanish language in which he blames Barack Obama for torpedoing comprehensive immigration reform -- even though they were both on the same side.
--Josh Marshall
Reformer
Two high-ranking McCain campaign officials were longtime lobbyists for companies at center of sex-drugs-oil Interior Department scandal.
--Greg Sargent
What a Team ...
As you know, Sarah Palin's been caught straight-up lying about deep-sixing the Bridge to Nowhere. And here's the transcript of her trying to explain the fib to Charlie Gibson ...
GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice-presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.
PALIN: I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.
GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks.
PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.
GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...
PALIN: I was...
GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.
PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.
GIBSON: Right.
PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.
We're at a key moment -- where we learn if there is any consequence in this election for serial lying. It's a question that only the major media outlets will be able to answer.
Late Update: Here's the video:
--Josh Marshall
Thinking Ahead
McCain state campaign co-chair files suit to begin vote purge in Wisconsin.
--Josh Marshall
Todd?
Alaska's Senate Judiciary Committee votes to approve subpoena for Todd Palin.
--Josh Marshall
The Congressional Races
In the midst of this all-consuming presidential race, it's easy to forget that there's a whole other national battle going on: The war over Congress.
So we're unveiling a new feature over at TPM Election Central -- daily roundups devoted entirely to the Congressional races, designed to give you an overview of the national Congressional map and to spotlight interesting stuff going on in individual contests.
TPM's own Eric Kleefeld will bring you two of these each weekday, one in the late morning, and one in the early evening, and our first is up. Take a look.
--Greg Sargent
Question of the Day
How can we trust a liar as big as John McCain?
I'm using the L-word. So that may come across as a slashing blog remark.
But let's slow down and look at the facts that are not being disputed. John McCain is telling lie after lie. Not off the cuff remarks that can be excused as accidents or flubs but the same lies consistently and many of them. Serial liars are never trustworthy people -- that is a truism. But it also demonstrates a deeper character flaw. A normal job applicant would be disregarded out of hand after such a record became clear.
--Josh Marshall
Lying McCain
It's become pathological. John McCain just claimed on TV that Sarah Palin has never requested an earmark for her state -- when actually her state gets more earmarks than any other state in the country. And this year she asked for $197 million worth of them herself.
Even the AP couldn't ignore his lying -- even though they phrased it in their own anemic way. "When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: "Not as governor she didn't."
For the record Palin requested $197 million this year and $256 million last year. Per capita, that's $288 this year and $376 last year.
To give you some perspective, Palin herself requested at least ten times the dollar value of earmarks as most states get total every year.
--Josh Marshall
Polls to Your Inbox Every Morning
For better or worse, lots of you are addicted to polls in these final weeks before the election. Not just the bumpy daily presidential tracking numbers, but all the house and senate and state presidential numbers around the country. The TPM Daily Digest brings you all the polls from the previous 24 hours delivered directly to your inbox every morning. In addition, you'll find the post popular TPM Media posts from the previous day, our editors' pick, the latest episode of TPMtv, a daybook of the political events of the day and much more.
Click here to sign up. It's free. And we won't ever sell, barter or give away your email address to anyone. Sign up today.
--Josh Marshall
More on Her War with Russia Flub ...
More details from an informed reader ...
There's a bit more on Georgia and Ukraine and NATO. What Obama and Biden favor is for NATO to offer these two countries accession to the "Membership Action Plan" (or MAP), a process set up in the late 1990s to help aspirant countries prepare for possible membership in the Alliance. MAP isn't a promise of membership, and the last members to join NATO were in MAP for nearly a decade. It would take at least as long for Ukraine and Georgia to become members of NATO, not least since one of the criterion for membership is that there are no territorial disputes involving the country that is requesting membership... A lot of mumbo jumbo on NATO accession procedures, this. But here's the kicker: What Palin said is that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members now. Not even Bush is arguing that. (He, too, favors MAP.) McCain was with Bush on this until recently and, I assume, if asked still is. Palin didn't know the distinction, and is suggesting that these countries get into NATO tomorrow. She may not realize that this is a decision that NATO members need to make collectively, all 27 of them, which won't happen, given that MAP was denied the countries just a few months ago...
--Josh Marshall
Inspiring Confidence
Rep. Zack Wamp (R-TN), on Palin's performance with Charlie Gibson:
Governor Palin is confident, smart, disciplined and while not yet totally prepared on the issues, she clearly is getting there....The country likes her so she will get a pass or two. If she holds up beyond that, she could be a transformative woman in American history. If not, we will all be disappointed.
That's not an endorsement we can believe in.
--David Kurtz
History Quiz
This is not the most consequential answer Sarah Palin has given Charlie Gibson so far, but it's indicative:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer.
If you look back at the 10 vice presidents since 1960 -- Johnson, Humphrey, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore and Cheney -- which of those would not have met a head of state before becoming VP?
Based on their pre-veep resumes, only Agnew jumps out as a possible candidate for Palin-level isolation. But I'm curious about this. Would Palin be the only veep in the last half century to have had no contact with a foreign head of state before taking office?
I'll update this as readers offer new info.
Late Update: On it already, ABC News' Lisa Chinn reports every veep in the last 32 years has met a head of state before taking office.
--David Kurtz
Ike
With a hurricane bearing down on Galveston, I'd be remiss in not recommending to the uninitiated Erik Larson's 2000 book on the great Galveston hurricane of 1900, which killed more people than any other single natural calamity in U.S. history. Isaac's Storm is an easy and engrossing read; I raced through it on a transatlantic flight. Worth your time.
--David Kurtz
Once Again
Obama leads on foreign policy; Bush eventually follows; and McCain is too proud to admit he was wrong.
--Josh Marshall
Dangerously Unprepared
Fallows explains why it matters that Palin had never heard of the 'Bush Doctrine'.
--Josh Marshall
Big Bucks
Earmark factoid of the day.
How much money would it take to provide earmarks for all Americans at the same rate that Sarah Palin bagged them for Wasila? On an annual basis?
A mere half a trillion dollars.
Exact number $422,302,519,152.
--Josh Marshall
Disrepectful
Check out the latest McCain ad, especially the line, "How disrespectful." Doesn't it just drip with contempt? The sort of old-fashioned contempt that whites often held blacks in (and obviously still do). Take a look.
--David Kurtz
Election Central Morning Roundup
Palin happy to perpetuate the Iraq-tied-to-9/11 lie. That and the day's other political mythology in today's TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Critical
E.J. Dionne: "McCain has shown he wants the presidency so badly that he's willing to say anything, true or false, to win power. Obama can win by fighting for what he believes. What he can't do is wait for the media to call McCain out -- although they should -- or expect voters to know he'll fight for them when they are not yet sure that he's willing to stand up for himself."
One point E.J. mentions that I've noticed too. Beside his convention speech, I can't think of a time in the last week or so that I saw Obama in front of a crowd. The appearances that I'm seeing showing up on TV during the day (an incomplete but probably not unrepresentative sampling) all look like there in front of a hundred or so people in a library or something. I wonder whether the celeb thing has just gotten inside his people's collective head and they're afraid to get him in front of real crowds.
If so, it's a very bad mistake. He has to be who he is. He can't run from his strengths. And he needs to charge up the people who want to be in the trenches with him. Excitement is infectious.
--Josh Marshall
Super-Human Energy Powers
"Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America."
That's John McCain on Sarah Palin. Even better? It's McCain's answer to what her foreign policy credentials are ...
I think at this point we need to confront the fact that we don't know yet which is more uncomfortable: watching Sarah Palin try to demonstrate her qualifications to be president or watching John McCain try to describe them.
--Josh Marshall
Farewell to Tire Swings?
From the AP on Palin's interview ...
John McCain running mate Sarah Palin sought Thursday to defend her qualifications but struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state.The Republican vice presidential nominee told Charles Gibson of ABC News in her first televised interview since being named to the GOP ticket that "I'm ready" to be president if called upon. However, she sidestepped on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief.
A second AP article lede ...
The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.
--Josh Marshall
Not Ready
Sarah Palin's "perhaps" in response to the question of whether we might have to go to war with Russia over Georgia is getting a lot of attention. The truth, though, is that Palin was doing little more that drawing out the logical inference of McCain & Co.'s unhinged policy vis a vis Russia -- not a huge surprise if you've just learned the policy in the last week. But McCain and those in his entourage at least have the seasoning to know not to traipse into throwaway hypotheticals about 'war' with the only other country in the world with a vast and eminently deliverable nuclear arsenal.
Late Update: A further point. It's true that Obama and Biden both favor Georgia's accession into NATO -- a very bad policy position, as I've argued before. However, I do not think that their positions and McCain's positions are equal. The best analogy I can point to is the nominal agreement on Iraq policy (embodied in the Iraq Liberation Act) between the Clinton administration and the most radical neocons in the late 1990s. Nominally, they shared a policy. In practice, however, it was one group that was completely nuts and gung-ho in favor of a reckless idea and another that was sort of dabbling in and passively favoring the same policy. Not that that is saying much in the latter's favor. But there's a big difference.
--Josh Marshall
Painful
The awkward moment when Charlie Gibson tries his best not to press the point that Sarah Palin doesn't know what he's referring to when he asks her about the "Bush Doctrine" ...
--Josh Marshall
12 Party Politics
Book Clubbin' with Hendrik Hertzberg: Is the fruit-fly-like proliferation of parties in the Knesset a good thing?
--Lila Shapiro
TPMtv: Deep Denial
It seems that the John McCain campaign can sink as low as it pleases, and John McCain - thanks to his impenetrable bubble of honor and the media's deep denial about what's going on - stays totally clean ...
Full-size video at TPMtv.com.
--Ben Craw
Like I Said, Four More Years of Bush Would Be Vastly Preferable
Wow, going to war with Russia might be necessary if Russia invades another one of the former states of the Soviet Union. So says Sarah Palin. War with Russia over Armenia? If Russia and Georgia go at it again? War between the US and Russia sure would be a positive development for the US. And sort of shows the consequences of taking a freshman governor with no experience in foreign policy and giving her a ten day crash course with Randy Scheunemann and the rest of John McCain's neocon brain trust that got booted from the Bush inner circle for being too nutty.
Late Update: Do we all understand now why former Sen. Chafee (R-RI) called her a "cocky whacko" earlier this week?
--Josh Marshall
Palin Foreign Policy: War with Russia
From ABC News:
EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY
More of the first excerpts from the Charlie Gibson interview here and here.
Here's the exchange on Russia:
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
--David Kurtz
Ask Her About the Rape Kits
I get the sense that maybe the subject is so charged that people don't want to bring it up. But I'm wondering if Charlie Gibson might be able to raise the matter during the Barbara Walters style interview he's doing today with Gov. Palin up in Alaska.
While Gov. Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska in the late 1990s, the city's policy was to charge rape victims for the cost of the 'rape kits' used to collect forensic evidence to help prosecute the rapists. Eventually the state had to step in and pass a law banning the practice. And according to former Gov. Tony Knowles, the law was passed specifically in response to Wasila's policy. "There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," says Knowles.
So Wasila was either the only or one of the only towns in the state to follow this practice. And the state legislature had to intervene to put an end to it. There's no controversy about this. So this part is clear.
But it appears this is another case whether Sarah Palin is lying or in this case deputizing press aides to lie on her behalf. In this case spokeswoman Maria Comella, when asked, told USAToday that "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. Gov. Palin's position could not be more clear. To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."
Well, this just appears to be a confident statement of another lie. She does not and has never believed this, only it was her policy when she ran the city in question which was either the only or the most prominent in the state that held to this practice.
Charlie, can you help on this?
(ed.note: This has been another edition of "Lying Sarah Watch"...)
--Josh Marshall
A National Scar
Paul Rieckhoff: Seven years later, why is there still a hole at ground zero?
M.J. Rosenberg talks about how we mourn not just the victims of 9/11, but the country we lost that day.
Bernard Avishai discusses how the next President might recover that past.
--David Kurtz
Seen But Not Heard
John McCain asserted in an interview with local Maine TV that Sarah Palin is "coming out in the next couple of days with interviews with numerous people."
Really? Is that true?
We know about the Charlie Gibson interview, Barbara Walters style. But we also know that she declined to be interviewed for CNN's big investigative special set to air this weekend (in contrast to Joe Biden, who sat for an interview with CNN).
So who is McCain talking about? Is she really doing "numerous" interviews? Or did McCain just make that up?
Keep an eye out and let us know if you see any others.
Late Update: The McCain campaign confirms to TPM Election Central that a series of Palin interviews are in the works, to start early next week (not in the next couple of days), but declined to provide specifics. Should we expect a soft roll out, with the likes of Hannity and Fund "grilling" her?
--David Kurtz
Research and Pork
A number of you have written in (mainly research scientists of one sort or another) to say that in the case of Sarah Palin's $3.2 million earmark request to study seal DNA we should not jump to the conclusion that such spending is wasteful just because it may sound funny. So let me be clear. I don't assume that at all. In fact, I'm a big supporter of federal spending on pure research -- much of which McCain routinely derides as pork to guffaws all around. My father was a marine biologist whose commitment to investment in the sciences was so great that he'd surely send a thunderbolt down from heaven to smite me if I didn't. Of course, being such a hard core scientist he didn't believe in heaven, which is a complication. But I digress. I raise these earmarks because it is another example that John McCain and Sarah Palin are monumental hypocrites and liars on the whole issue of reform, earmarks, the Bridge to Nowhere and virtually everything else. So it would be irresponsible not to make that clear.
Late Update: TPM Reader LS makes a good additional point ...
One more point of view from a scientist:good science is funded through peer review, not via earmarks and lobbying.
we don't want science funded this way, it leads to croneyism and misuse. give the money to NIH and NSF and don't do by congressman trading favors.
earmarks are lousy way to fund science, bad, bad, bad.
TPM Reader CM makes much the same point ...
I'm a social scientist, rather than a hard scientist, but, for better or for worse, I swim in the sea of research dollars. While I agree with your post that funding research is a good use of tax money and is essential to keeping our society and economy vital, I'm not sure that earmarking research dollars through legislative action is the best way to ensure that the best research is funded. The federal government has organizations like the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities that distribute research dollars after review by area experts and professional scientists. While I certainly do think congressional oversight of the NSF and the NEH is necessary, allocation of research funds is best left to the professionals. However valid, direct research funding through spending bills is a pork-related program activity.
As a related matter, most of Palin's 'science' earmarks requested for last year are actually sops to the fishing industry in her state to which she is closely tied.
--Josh Marshall
McCain: Too Many People Insured
Joe Klein on McCain's (too little talked about) health care insurance tax increase.
--Josh Marshall
Shut It Down!
The latest on Trooper-Gate is that Gov. Palin is moving to have her ally, the state's Attorney General move to quash subpoenas of her aides in the investigation.
--Josh Marshall
BaBa WaWa
Can anyone else think of a major political figure who's done only Barbara Walters-style prime time celebrity interviews rather than appearing on actual news shows? I can't. And really a political campaign will do whatever it can get away with. But what news organization has ever done that? What an embarrassment.
--Josh Marshall
Not Just a River in Egypt
James Carville still mourns the McCain he once knew -- and is struggling to move past the denial phase:
--David Kurtz
Rumble
From an Obama supporter who's gunning for a fight ...
3.2 million for Seal DNA?People love this. One thing that captures the imagination. It's the new Bridge to Nowhere. That should be the talking point. 3.2 Million for Seal DNA? Is that the kind of change we need? "Do I hear lipstick on a seal?"
--Josh Marshall
Erratic
Former AZ Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) on why the press's judgment problem about McCain ....
[McCain] has a problem of judgment. I think that has been clear, as the campaign goes on, that his judgment is flawed. He paints it as a "maverick" position, but in fact he has a problem finding good judgment and staying with it.He likes to paint himself as a man of convictions that stays with it. But if you served with him, as I did, and if you have followed him since I have left, and I have done that, you see his positions changed [with] whatever is needed. Whether it's on taxes, income tax cuts; whether it's on drilling in Alaska, or offshore, or you name it -- and John McCain has been all over the map.
And he will continue to do that, and that's why he has been able to be successful because, in my judgment, mostly. not all of the media, but much of the media kind of lets him get away with it.
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Morning Roundup
New Quinnipiac polls give Obama leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania but show McCain ahead in Florida. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Lying Sarah Watch
WSJ: In confidential letter, one-time Palin ethics advisor warned her that Trooper-gate scandal was "grave" and recommended she and her husband publicly apologize for their actions.
--Josh Marshall
Deep, Deep in Denial
WaPo editorial: "John McCain is a serious man who promised to wage a serious campaign. Win or lose, will he be able to look back on this one with pride? Right now, it's hard to see how."
--Josh Marshall
Deep Thought
Did Biden forget to mention to Obama that he was retiring from public life in September?
--Josh Marshall
Embrace the Pig, II
TPM reader and film director James Mangold scripts what he wishes Obama had said today:
So. I'm talking about John McCain's economic policies, and I say: "This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig." And suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska." And now they're making this big fuss and, you know -- here's where most Democrats in the past would carefully and earnestly explain how I meant nothing of the kind.Heck, I was about to do that. Yesterday, I didn't mean anything but a comment on their policies, one that was obvious to anyone who was there. But today is different. Today I am here to tell you that I am flip flopping. I've changed my mind.
Pig in lipstick. I meant it any way they want to take it.
For weeks we've all watched their low-ball ads and listened to their lies and twisted innuendo, attacks on my family and our values, community service and patriotism, all of it wrapped in our flag-- and last night I thought to myself, Barack, CHANGE isn't letting someone kick you over and over again. CHANGE doesn't mean that the only response to blatant lies, extremism and intolerance is thoughtfulness.
Maybe the reason they think they'll get away with this is they think I'm such a big lofty "celebrity" that I can't get down on the ground and fight like a man. Well, they are wrong. Lies are lies. Not untruths. Not misstatements. Not "questionable" facts. Lies. And lies dishonor our nation.
A great country, the world's greatest country, should not waste its time with trivialities -- but a wise leader cannot pretend the world is as he wishes it was. If this is the kind of fight they want, then I will give it back to them.
So let me be clear what I meant yesterday.
McCain and Palin, their policies and their demeaning campaign are A PIG IN LIPSTICK.
They are OLD FISH IN A NEW WRAPPER.
They are a threat to our future. Because they are the past, masquerading as the future.
You want to go backward -- vote for them.
--David Kurtz
Delusional
Groping toward the truth but still utterly delusional. MSNBC's Chris Matthews has been doing a pretty decent job being candid and straight-up about the sleazy campaign the McCain camp is running. But he still thinks 'the McCain camp' is doing this behind McCain's back since he's too honorable and straight-talking to stand for this kind of sleaze.
Matthews: "I do have a tremendous amount of faith in John McCain's integrity. He used to be on the show all the time ... I don't believe he'd sit where you're sitting and call his opponent or say his opponent called his running mate a pig. I don't believe he'd say that. So i wonder why his people agreed to do that ... This is a claim I don't think the candidate himself would make."
Joe, you've seen the light on this guy, right?
--Josh Marshall
For Your Evening Viewing Pleasure ...
(Special Lying Sarah Watch Earmark Edition)
--Josh Marshall
Lying Sarah Watch
As we illustrated pretty clearly in this afternoon's video, Sarah Palin is about as a big a lying fraud as you can be on the issue of 'earmark reform'. But when we were researching her record on earmarks yesterday afternoon, I have to confess it didn't occur to us to look beneath the 'toplines' and find out just what all of her requested earmarks were for.
Well, now we have some examples. $2 million to study crab mating habits; half a million to study recreational halibut fishing; $3.2 million on seal DNA. Even more good stuff here.
--Josh Marshall
Wipe Out!
McCain crashes and burns in first post post-convention rally without Palin at his side.
--Josh Marshall
Palin an Earmark Reformer? Simply Laughable
(ed.note: Inspired by Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com.)
--Josh Marshall
Embrace It
Let's face it. Lipstick on a pig is a classic American phrase. And there's just no better way to describe the McCain-Palin ticket. The 'Reformer' whose whole campaign and senate office is run by a crew of high-rolling DC lobbyists? The earmark slayer whose state this year got ten times more earmarks than any other state in the country? Whose city when she was mayor got twenty times as many? The whole operation is just one big bamboozling lie. And lipstick on a pig is just using good American English to explain it. If McCain and Palin don't like it they should have thought of that before they decided to run as frauds.
Late Shameless Merchandizing Update: This wasn't the idea. But we're getting inundated with requests for lipstick pig t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons, etc. So we're looking into putting those together and we'll have a link for you to order soon.
And here we go ...
Men's T-shirt (click here to order)
Women's T-shirt (click here to order)
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Bridge to Reality
Sarah Palin hasn't stopped selling her bogus "Bridge to Nowhere" claim. But at least now it looks like the media has stopped buying ...
Full-size video at TPMtv.com.
--Ben Craw
All You Need to Know
Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin -- her first contact with national media -- will air Friday night on ... 20/20.
--David Kurtz
Ricocheting In The Winger Echo Chamber
John Fund reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal that "Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background."
That report has ricocheted around the right wing echo chamber. Hannity picked it up last night on Fox News. A McCain surrogate parroted it today on Fox. Now, the McCain camp has an ad out repeating the Fund report, with images of a pack of wolves. This all after Marc Ambinder posted a statement from the DNC yesterday denying any such team had been dispatched.
The DNC has reiterated those denials today, and the Obama camp denies it as well (pointing to the DNC statement).
So we called up Fund, and he's standing by his story, though he could not be more specific about which "Democrats" he was referring to. Hmmm ...
(Ed. Note: I guess my only question is, why didn't the Dems dispatch a team to Alaska?)
--David Kurtz
Good Question
From TPM Reader WS:
Here in Wisconsin, one of the heads of the "Palin Truth Squad", former Lt. Gov. Margaret Farrow is giving interviews, outraged over the lipstick comment. The state GOP has called a 1:30 press conference where a group of GOP women will rip into Obama for all of the assembled TV cameras.My question... where the hell are the Democrats on this? Not just here, but nationally, they are letting Obama get bloodied over this. Where is Biden? Is he turning into this cycle's Edwards? Where are Pelosi and Boxer and Sebelius today?
The campaign needs to stop forcing Obama to take on the entire right-wing... His organization in every state should have high-profile surrogates out there today ripping into McCain and Palin, not just on the lipstick, but on the the sex ed ad and the judge's order for Palin to stay out of the divorce.
Where are these people?
--David Kurtz
Forget the Electoral College ...
I say this with the proviso that it's clear that the polls are settling back to roughly a tie. And there's no need for anyone to panic. But lots of people write in to say that the national polls don't mean anything, that it's the electoral college that decides the election and that Obama remains firmly in command on that count.
Don't be fooled. Every electoral college count you see is by definition a lagging indicator simply because individual state polls don't come in anywhere near as frequently as national polls. So when you point to an electoral counter, you're referring to a composite picture that is a few weeks old. If the race remains a statistical tie as it is as of today, with a hair's breadth of a McCain lead, the electoral map will soon rebalance to a rough tie as well.
--Josh Marshall
Unfit
He's using different words. But it sounds like one-time McCain fan Andrew Sullivan has come to the same conclusion I have (see below): he's morally unfit to be president.
He says it well too.
--Josh Marshall
The Hebrew Republic
We're clearly into the white water rafting phase of the 2008 campaign. But while we're keeping up to speed on the craziness, I wanted also to make sure you check out our TPMCafe Book Club this week on Bernard Avishai's new book The Hebrew Republic: How Secular Democracy and Global Enterprise Will Bring Israel Peace at Last. You can dive in with the latest post in the discussion, from The New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg. You won't want to miss this conversation or this post.
--Josh Marshall
Katie?
In his new ad out today John McCain makes Katie Couric complicit in his new smear ad, another flat out lie. Is she going to speak out on this? Or mum's the word? Don't want to interfere?
--Josh Marshall
Lying Sarah Watch
She just repeated the Bridge fib one more time.
Even last night, it was so bad even Chris Matthews started a count for how many times she's done it ...
--Josh Marshall
Why Even Address It?
I can't understand the rationale for Obama to clarify his "lipstick on a pig" remark first thing this morning at the top of his speech. It was a good line. It riffed off of Palin's lipstick/pitbull line in her acceptance speech. It was pointed, sure. But so what?
Yes, Obama sort of laughed it off and dismissed the criticism with some elan. He wasn't overly defensive about it, but he was still playing defense. His whole orientation is wrong. Today, you come up with a good new line. You play off of the previous day's good line. You keep moving the ball forward.
The McCain camp is running an ad linking Obama to sex and children -- and Obama is taking valuable time at the beginning of his speech to explain how he wasn't really indirectly calling Sarah Palin a pig?
As Begala says: Attack! Attack! Attack!
--David Kurtz
The Bigs Agree
Following up on the post below, it seems Joe Klein agrees, calls McCain's latest "one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics." There's just no getting around it at this point, the man is not morally fit to serve as president.
--Josh Marshall
Unfit for High Office
One of the interesting aspects of this campaign is watching the scales fall from the eyes of many of John McCain's closest admirers among the veteran DC press corps. I'm not talking about the freaks on Fox News or any of the sycophants at the AP. I'm talking about, let's say, the better sort of reporters and commentators in the 45 to 65 age bracket. To the extent that the press was McCain's base (and in many though now sillier respects it still is) this was the base of the base. And talking to a number of them I can understand why that was, at least in the sense of the person he was then presenting himself as.
But over the last ... maybe six weeks, in various conversations with these folks, the change is palpable. Whether it will make any difference in the tone of coverage in the dominant media I do not know. But it is sinking in.
All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House. And today McCain comes out with this rancid, race-baiting ad based on another lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison. (And remember, President George H.W. Bush never ran the Willie Horton ad himself. It was an outside group. He wasn't willing to degrade himself that far.) As TPM Reader JM said below, at least Horton actually was released on a furlough. This is ugly stuff. And this is an ugly person. There's clearly no level of sleaze this guy won't stoop to to win this election.
And let's be frank. He might win it. This is clearly a testing time for Obama supporters. But I want to return to a point I made a few years ago during the Social Security battle with President Bush. Winning and losing is never fully in one's control -- not in politics or in life. What is always within our control is how we fight and bear up under pressure. It's easy to get twisted up in your head about strategy and message and optics. But what is already apparent is that John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes. So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska. They've both embraced a level of dishonesty that disqualifies them for high office. Democrats owe it to the country to make clear who these people are. No apologies or excuses. If Democrats can say at the end of this campaign that they made clear exactly how and why these two are unfit for high office they can be satisfied they served their country.
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Morning Roundup
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm will play the role of Sarah Palin in Joe Biden's veep debate practice rounds. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Honor?
TPM Reader EH ...
I think I'm the first one to say it: "honorgate". Presumably somebody will ask Obama about this today. I hope his response is something like, "look, I don't know how Senator McCain defines honor, but it's worth asking: is it honorable to characterize a bill to protect children from sexual predators as 'teaching sex-ed to kindergarteners'? Is it honorable to accuse your opponent of wanting to lose a war to win an election? Is it honorable to repeat the same lies day after day on the campaign trail, long after they have been proven false?"Needless to say I'll be extremely unhappy if Obama does anything to distance himself from those comments or to come across as apologetic.
We're still talking about honor with this guy? Face it. This guy is running the sleaziest presidential campaign of our lifetimes. McCain and Palin are out their lying their heads off. Liars have no honor.
Late Update: BL has an idea too ...
I know responding to a scurrilous attack with a "he did it to" defense doesn't help knock down the original falsehood, but why isn't someone bringing up McCain's past with women? The Chelsea Clinton - Janet Reno ugly joke? How about the gorilla rape joke? Leaving his crippled wife for a beauty queen? Dating exotic dancers - per Fred Thompson?This man not only has no honor. He has no shame. He's the prohibitionist who rails against the drink in public but gets wasted every night in private.
Normally it might not be appropriate for the press to dig into McCain's ugly past with women. But when he's out there like a preening fraud tossing out phony charges of sexism they really have no choice.
Late Update: Let's remember, this is the same John S. McCain who had a good belly laugh with a supporter and called it a "good question" when the supporter called Hillary Clinton a "bitch."
--Josh Marshall
Newsweek Burning Up the Trooper-Gate Case
The latest out of Trooper-gate.
Remember that Palin's Trooper-Gate scandal revolves around her apparent efforts to use her power as governor to have her ex-brother-in-law, an Alaska state trooper, fired from his job. The trooper, Michael Wooten, was in a long-lasting and bitter divorce and custody battle with Palin's sister. (Once the state Commissioner of Public Safety, Wooten's ultimate boss, wouldn't do the deed, she fired him.)
Now it comes out that before she even became governor -- and was in a position to abuse her power of office -- Palin had to be warned by the judge in the divorce case that her harassment of Wooten amounted to "a form of child abuse."
If her behavior was so abusive and over-the-line before she became governor (this was in 2005), can there really be much doubt she would have used all her power of office to get him fired?
--Josh Marshall
Cosmic Inversion?
From TPM Reader NH ...
What alien invaded Mark Halperin's body? On AC360, he trashed McCain/Palin for being phony and dishonest. Then he went after the press for talking about lipstick on the pig, for not calling Palin out on the Bridge to Nowhere, and for letting her get away with such tight press restrictions.Hardball also went hard on the bridge to nowhere.
And TPM Reader BS too ...
Shocked, absolutely shocked.Watching AC360 on CNN, the last segment ~10 minutes in, Mark Halperin actually made intelligent points regarding the coverage of Palin. In essence, the other 3 candidates have been on the scene for months if not years. Sarah Palin is new to the scene and instead of wasting time on silly stories (putting lipstick on a pig), the real record of Palin has to be discussed.
--Josh Marshall
Deep Thought
Will John McCain bring Sarah Palin to the debates with Obama?
--Josh Marshall
Pretty Much
TPM Reader JM not happy with McCain's sleazy campaign ...
The sex ed ad is literally worse than the Willie Horton ad, because at least the Horton story was true. But the bill Obama supported actually did the reverse of what McCain claims - it didn't mandate more sex ed for anybody, it tried to toughen up existing classes by teaching the risks of STDs. The bill didn't glorify sex, it highlighted the dangers of sex. It's the most old fashioned sex ed there is: scaring kids straight. So now even THAT is anti-family?Calling this "perverse" is a good first step, but the lie here deserves much, much more. It's the disgusting act of a candidate who cares more about scaring people with lies than warning kids about the dangers of early sexual activity. Anyone who would oppose such
warnings is an objective supporter of unprotected, unsafe underage sex.So throw back the slime with a truthful attack: It's McCain who wants more unsafe teenage sex, McCain who wants more kids to get STDs, McCain who wants more young people to get HIV. McCain would rather win a political campaign than protect children from sexual diseases.
That's worse than shameful, worse than unpatriotic. That's evil.
TPM Reader WS has some more to add ...
Is everyone looking close enough at the McCain ad? I just watched the ad again. There is one picture of children, all of them white (I think - can you tell?) And the next image is of Obama, looking down and over his shoulder, with a smile on his face. But since when do campaign ads show your opponent smiling? It's always a frown or a grimace, right? Not this time. What's he smiling about? It's not subtle. And it's not an ad about sex education. A black man, sex, and children. I think this ad is more odious than is being acknowledged. Take another look at it!
Couldn't agree more. But let's not be surprised. McCain is pure sleaze. Sound harsh? Sure. But any other interpretation of the man at this point amounts to willful obliviousness or an embrace of the fantasy that he somehow doesn't know what his campaign is doing in his name. This is the race he's decided to run. Now what do you do about it?
--Josh Marshall
Getting All Whiny
McCain tries to whip up outrage about Obama using a common phrase McCain used last year.
I mean, can't he at least be happy that now he has someone who can go toe to toe with Obama for him?
At first it seemed like they didn't want to let Palin out on her own for fear she'd stumble into some kind of trouble. But now it's pretty clear McCain's afraid to let go of her or go out alone without her.
Late Update: That's interesting. It seems like more than a few people are just telling it like it is that McCain is lying as bad as Palin now. Now Ben Smith, like Ambinder, is giving the buzzer to McCain on his new lie about what Obama said.
Latter Update: Now Jake's calling McCain out.
Still Latter Update: Melber on Lying McCain's ploy. "McCain Camp Plays Gender Card with Pig Ploy"
--Josh Marshall
Hide the Children!
New McCain ad: Obama wants to teach children about sex before they can read.
--David Kurtz
Pretty Sad
The local news in Alaska is willing to play it more straight about Palin's Bridge lie than the prestige networks in the lower 48 ...
--Josh Marshall
Lying Sarah Watch
Sometimes when you've got a liar as big as Sarah Palin on the line only a timeline will really do justice to her fibbing ways.
So a lot of you have written in to ask: Okay, she says she said 'Thanks. But no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere. But how exactly did it all come out? What's the order of events? Well, briefly, it went like this.
Actually, Congress put the kibosh on the Bridge to Nowhere back in November 2005. Since Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was then head of the Senate Appropriations Committee he was able to force a compromise in which the earmark for the bridge was killed but Alaska got to hold on to the money -- some $442 million of federal tax dollars.
Fast forward to November 2006. That's when Sarah Palin was running as a staunch supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere -- that is, after the feds had themselves already said 'No Thanks.'
In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. So by the time Palin got into office it was clear that not only was the first Bridge earmark killed but that Congress was not going to be ponying up any more money. That meant that Alaska was going to have to pick up the tab all on its own. So since she couldn't pay for it with the federal pork barrel, in September 2007, Palin officially halted the project which was then a state project since Congress had said 'Thanks. But no thanks' two years earlier.
She couldn't say 'No Thanks' because Congress had already said 'Forget It'.
Still with me?
So the money Palin sent back to Washington? Well, she didn't. She kept the money for other bridges and roads in Alaska.
So, to boil it all down, Congress pulled the plug on the Bridge to Nowhere in 2005. Palin was still for it in 2006. And when she finally ended the project because Congress had cut off funding, instead of saying 'No Thanks' she actually said 'Thanks!' because instead of sending the money back to Washington she kept it all in Juneau.
Next question?
Late Update: From TPM Reader JF ...
Good summary of the Bridge to Nowhere fiasco but it's even worse:From the Anchorage Daily News:
Alaska "is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government."
The state is building a road to a bridge that doesn't even exist for $24M. Who's paying for it? You and me.
We are beyond the ridiculous here. It's utterly surreal.
--Josh Marshall
Carolina Bounce
A new SurveyUSA poll of North Carolina puts McCain up 20 points, compared to 4 points a month ago.
--David Kurtz
Send Us Examples
We'll be talking more about this. But as I said yesterday, a lot of press outlets are now willing to say flat out that Sarah Palin is lying through her teeth on her Bridge to Nowhere fib. But quite a few are still holding on with the Palin says she did, Obama campaign says she didn't hooey. So if you see really egregious examples, particularly on tv, drop us a line and let us know. It's amazing how many news organizations see it as part of their responsibility to make themselves complicit in these lies. So we'd like to put together some examples.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Bridge of Lies
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin continues to repeat the claim that she told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks," for the notorious "Bridge to Nowhere" project. Apparently Sarah didn't get the memo: her claim has been thoroughly debunked by the media ...
Full-size video at TPMtv.com.
--Ben Craw
And Now for the Details ...
Yesterday we posted this video (see below) chronicling Gov. Palin's big lie about stopping the Bridge to Nowhere. Quick viral videos, though, move very quickly. So we've now prepared this annotated guide to each statement and answer cited in the video -- including transcripts, at length selections of video and more. So if you weren't satisfied with the sound bite lie you can now have the at length version too.
--Josh Marshall
Back in the Day
Obama reminds us that back when all the cool kids were for it, John McCain wanted to abolish the Department of Education.
--David Kurtz
Still Fibbin'
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) is still out there today touting her supposed opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere.
Meanwhile, indicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) comes to Palin's defense. Gotta love that.
--David Kurtz
Election Central Morning Roundup
With a new TV ad and a speech scheduled in Ohio, Obama's theme of the day is public education. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Welcome to TPM
Like a lot of other websites during this political season TPM has gotten a flood of new readers. So we wanted to take a moment to welcome you and also let you know about a few features and services of the site you may not have noticed.
First, if you want to keep up on everything we're publishing at TPM and have every poll published in the last 24 hours delivered right to you inbox every morning you can sign up for our TPM Daily Digest. It's delivered every weekday. And we won't ever sell, barter or give your email address to anyone. Ever.
Second, you've probably noticed we publish a lot of original videos and clips of some of the most outrageous stuff appearing on the cable news networks. If you want to keep up on all our videos, you can subscribe to our Youtube channel. Just click through to our Youtube channel page and click the yellow 'subscribe' button on the upper left.
--Josh Marshall
Meme Taking Hold?
We've now had a week of blaring headlines and one-liners about Sarah Palin as the mavericky, pork-busting reformer from Alaska. But we seem to be witnessing the first stirrings of a backlash and a dawning realization that the 'Sarah Palin' we've heard so much about over the last few days is a fraud of truly comical dimensions.
The McCain camp has made her signature issue shutting down the Bridge to Nowhere. But as The New Republic put it today that's just "a naked lie." And pretty much the same thing has been written today in Newsweek, the Washington Post, the AP, the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday even Fox's Chris Wallace called out Rick Davis on it. (Do send more examples when you find them.)
On earmarks she's an even bigger crock. On the trail with McCain they're telling everyone that she's some kind of earmark slayer when actually, when she was mayor and governor, in both offices, she requested and got more earmarks than virtually any city or state in the country.
Think about that. On the stump, not a single word that comes out of her mouth -- or not a single word that the McCain folks put in her mouth -- is anything but a lie. I know that sounds like hyperbole. But just go down the list. None of them bear out.
What's the metaphor? What movie character is she like? Some iconic phony, yes. It's on the tip of my tongue but I can't place it. Help me with this.
--Josh Marshall
Palin a Reformer? Simply Laughable
Want to help us make more videos like this? Subscribe to our Youtube channel. Just click through to our page and then click the yellow "subscribe" button on the upper left.
--Josh Marshall
On the Web We Call it 'Lying'
From the WSJ ...
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.The McCain campaign released a television advertisement1 Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.
[Republican presidential candidate John McCain (right) and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, at a campaign rally in Lee's Summit, Mo.]
Getty Images
Republican presidential candidate John McCain (right) and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, at a campaign rally in Lee's Summit, Mo.But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.
A year ago, the governor issued a press release2 that the money for the project was being "redirected."
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."
--Josh Marshall
New Poll(s)
ABC/WaPo: Obama 47%, McCain 46%.
CBS: McCain 46%, Obama 44%.
CNN: McCain 48%, Obama 48%.
--Josh Marshall
No Thanks (But I'll Keep the Pork)
Sarah Palin and John McCain are going all over the country saying how Sarah Palin killed the Bridge to Nowhere (not true) and that she said "No Thanks" to the Feds when presented with the money.
Really?
What happened to the $223 million Palin is saying she said "No Thanks" to?
She kept it. Once it was no longer earmarked for the Bridge, Palin kept it for other pork barrel projects of her own choosing.
--Josh Marshall
Big Fibbin'
AP: "John McCain and Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though Alaska under Palin's leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects."
--Josh Marshall
The Hebrew Republic
Bernard Avishai joins us at TPMCafe Book Club for a discussion of his latest book, The Hebrew Republic: How Secular Democracy and Global Enterprise Will Bring Israel Peace At Last.
Discussing with him are Yoram Peri, head of the Rothschild Caesarea School of Communication and professor of political Sociology and communication at Tel Aviv University, Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor and staff writer at The New Yorker. Sherman Teichman, Director of the Institute for Global Leadership at Tufts University will also be participating along with Dov Frohman, founding CEO of Intel-Israel, and Charles Glass, freelance journalist, broadcaster and author most recently of The Northern Front (2006). Last, but certainly not least, Ambassador Alvaro de Soto, Peruvian diplomat and former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process will be adding his seasoned voice to the mix.
Bernie's first post is here. Should be a great week-- drop by and weigh in!
--Lila Shapiro
Breaking: Kevin Ring Indicted
Prosecutors have unsealed the long-awaited indictment against Abramoff crony Kevin Ring, according to the AP. Ring is charged with 10 counts of conspiring with Abramoff to bribe congressmen and their aides.
--David Kurtz
Change
From TPM Reader JA ...
Josh, in dismissing the Gallup poll this morning, you describe the Obama campaign as reactive and "unwilling or unable to take the initiative." Huh? We just watched a GOP convention in which the nominee for the incumbent party agreed the election was about change. In the major speeches given by Republicans, speakers used the word "change" 30 times--more than any other theme, including "reform."The McCain campaign wanted to frame this election on experience, but had to abandon that when the polls didn't move. The surge issue has likewise attracted no great interest. Although McCain continues to discuss it, as a theme, he has ditched it in favor of this murky "change/reform" theme. (By selecting Sarah Palin, the campaign has officially ceded the point.) This all works to Obama's advantage because if the discussion becomes one of change, it must necessarily shift to policy--the last place McCain wants to go. But he's backed himself into a corner.
Obama has run his general campaign with exactly the kind of pacing he ran the primary. It's not always clear why he's doing certain things because they don't correspond to the daily news cycle. That's because he has planned the entire campaign in advance. You can see how he's hit his marks as he's gone along: after he won the primary, he immediately tacked right and demonstrated his "working across the aisles" theme. The trip abroad was designed to elevate him to a presidential figure and deflate the claims of his inexperience. The convention was a way to simultaneously build momentum among the base and lay a foundation for elevating the discussion above Rovian BS and placing it directly on issues via the change argument.
We exit the convention right on schedule. Obama has set the table, and the Republicans have come to dine. I have little doubt but that the Obama camp feels it's right where it wants to be.
I don't think this negates my point about taking and holding the initiative. But I do think this is a very good point. And I was thinking along these same lines over the weekend. Embracing the idea that this is a change election puts McCain in a possibly winning but also extremely perilous position because the claim to represent change is inherently preposterous. The Obama camp should grab onto this concession, bank it and fight the rest of the election on these terms. How can a senator who's been in Washington for 26 six years and embraces all the policies of the president of the last eight years be change? It answers itself.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Sunday Show Roundup: Better Vetting Late Than Never
Is she ready to be Commander-in-Chief? Too late to ask now - Sarah Palin is already the vice presidential nominee for the man who would be the oldest first-term president in American history.
Full-size video at TPMtv.com.
--Ben Craw
In for a Dime ...
The refrain I always hear from Dems 'they've got to fight back'. But once you're 'fighting back' you're at best holding your own and probably losing. You have start the fight. Let the other guy fight back.
--Josh Marshall
Puff
Why would the McCain camp pick Charlie Gibson for the first Palin interview? Hmmm ...
--David Kurtz
Laughably Ignorant
Just more evidence. Over the weekend Gov. Palin said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."
Only they're not even taxpayer funded. It's only the government takeover, which Sen. McCain supports, that could change that.
I understand that the TV networks and the big papers feel like they're not allowed to criticize Gov. Palin. But we're in the middle of a housing and credit crisis and she doesn't even know what Fannie and Freddie are. It's an embarrassing level of ignorance that would sink a candidate for house or senate.
--Josh Marshall
Plan B?
Yglesias has a good point here. The McCain campaign's ability to frame their message around a series of demonstrable lies is only possible because most of the press takes an agnostic position on whether his messages and ads are true or not. But if the press won't, don't we need to stop relying on the mainstream press to make that point? That's a very tall proposition. But this is a pattern we've seen cycle after cycle. Complaining about it only achieves a sort meaningless moral victory.
--Josh Marshall
Primal Scream
The TPM email bag this morning is chock of emails saying, in so many words, is it time to panic? I'm actually not taking much summary license here. Most of the emails I'm talking about actually ends with some form of that sentence. Since a lot of you are asking this I thought I should provide some sort of answer.
First, I think the USAToday/Gallup poll is an outlier. I wouldn't put much stock in it. It's clear that McCain is getting a sizable bump out of his convention. But remember, Obama did too. It quickly subsided, as was expected. And we should expect McCain's to as well. We'll know more by the end of the week.
Polls aside though, I continue to see a campaign in which the McCain camp has a consistent and aggressive message. They're constantly on the attack and largely defining the debate. The Obama campaign is largely reactive, parrying the attacks -- sometimes rapid response, sometimes slower response, but defined largely by response. It seemed that way to me in July, in August and it seems that way to me now.
At several points over the last year, I've underestimated Obama's campaign. And I take it that their position now is that they're not going to get knocked off their game. Instead they're staying focused on the ground game in the dozen and a half states where they believe the race will be won or lost. That's difficult for someone in my position to evaluate. The messaging and air war is something that is inherently visible. The ground game is very difficult to evaluate because it's much more difficult to see. So we're left to take it on faith that they know what they're doing, without having much way of seeing for ourselves.
I certainly hope they do. But what I see is a campaign that is for some reason either unwilling or unable to take the initiative in the national messaging war. It's all reactive. And, yeah, that worries me.
--Josh Marshall
Just a Thought
If John McCain wins, for all that has happened over the last eight years in Iraq and elsewhere, we would get a new president even more closely tied to the DC neoconservative axis than President Bush has ever been.
--Josh Marshall
Toward the McCain Court
A coalition of right-wing churches is pushing a test case to allow them to be tax exempt and endorse political candidates.
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Morning Roundup
New McCain-Palin TV ad hits the airwaves touting "The Original Mavericks." That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Slow Slide Into Oblivion
I spent most of the day today traveling and then giving a talk up at Union College a few hours north of New York City. So I was offline most of the day. And though I heard about Charlie Gibson bagging the first interview with Sarah Palin, I was eager to get home and read the details.
Well, now I've read them. And it's pretty clear this farce is going to be close to unwatchable. Set aside that this comes just on the heels of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis saying Palin would not sit for any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference." The tell comes high up in the AP story by David Bauder. The second graf reads ...
Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter.
Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be.
Here's some more to inspire confidence ...
The interview is a coup for Gibson, who also had the only sit-down with McCain during the Republican National Convention. During that interview, he did not question McCain about Palin's family, a decision that he fretted about for hours, Gibson said in a Web log posted last week."Once you know about her daughter's pregnancy, once you know about her husband's political interest in the Alaska Independent Party, once you know about the special nature of their latest child, I think that's enough," Gibson wrote.
The relevant questions about Palin all related to her experience and policy positions as a mayor and governor of Alaska.
ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said he did not believe Gibson's stated stance about family questions was key to securing the interview.
It will be unwatchable.
--Josh Marshall
Pitiful
Just read this piece in the Times about MSNBC pulling Olbermann and Matthews off as hosts on major political events. I see all the different arguments. But it seems pretty obvious that the network got cowed by complaints from the McCain campaign.
--Josh Marshall
Not Training Wheels We Can Believe In
There's a lot of complaining that the McCain campaign won't allow anyone to interview Sarah Palin. And for the major news outlets that would be in line for such an interview there's a logic to keeping up the drumbeat. But McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is right: It's their campaign to run. They can do it how they want. Everyone else should just shut up, stop complaining and call the reality for what it is.
Davis says Palin won't give any interviews until she feels "comfortable" giving one. And this morning he added that she wouldn't give any "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."
Sarah Palin could be the President of the United States in four and a half months. We tend to think of this as an abstraction; but it's true. And yet today she's so unprepared and knows so little about the challenges and tasks facing the country that she can't even give a softball interview.
That's really all we need to know. Yes, she's off being prepped at some undisclosed location. And I've little doubt that by the time her debate rolls around she'll be sufficiently pumped full of slogans and bromides to make a show of it. But now, this moment, is the one that tells us all we need to know.
As is so often the case, Palin is the incarnation of the Republican slurs. The darling of the hard-right; she gives stem-winding speeches. She pushes all their buttons. But she's such a lightweight, they can't risk letting her answer a few questions. Not even on Fox. They know she's not ready and probably never will be. But they think the politics might work for them.
Late Update: Here's video of Davis:
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Sunday Roundup
Sarah Palin is still avoiding interviews -- and sticking to the teleprompter. That and other political news in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Do we need to remind Joe Biden he was hired to take the gloves off.
Late Update: Am I actually seeing more examples of Obama hitting Palin than Biden? WTF, not Obama's job.
Latter Update: Also, time to start calling McCain the liar that he is. On taxes principally. He's lying about taxes. Can't be said enough, has to start now.
--Josh Marshall
