My last post 
dealt with seven untruths that have come out of the mouth of Barack Obama. The Economist has found three more 
:
Very little has been made of two instances, reported last month by the Washington Post 
, where Mr Obama exaggerated his role in legislative accomplishments. When a bipartisan attempt was made to reform America's immigration policy, Mr Obama claimed to be one of the senators who in 2006 "had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out." If it were true, it would've boosted his repuation as a uniter of Republicans and Democrats. But miffed Senate staffers say Mr Obama never attended the critical early morning negotiating sessions where the bill was hammered out. And he played an even smaller role when the issue was re-visited in 2007—after showing up late for a meeting he was even upbraided by Ted Kennedy.
More recently, when referring to housing legislation unveiled this year, Mr Obama called it "the legislation I put forward with my colleague Chris Dodd". Mr Dodd, an Obama supporter, may be too kind to say so, but this simply isn't accurate. Mr Obama backed the measure, as did Mrs Clinton, but he did not author or sponsor the legislation, which is to say he didn't put it forward anymore than Mrs Clinton did.
In yet another instance Mr Obama claimed to have passed a bill on nuclear regulation 
that never made it out of the Senate.
And Obama is still trotting out the lie that John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq 
. Maybe I'm a little naive, but I thought that one of the primary tasks our media has is to hold politicians' words accountable. Alas. Perhaps, like Chris Matthews, there are thrills going up their legs when they're in his presence. What will it take for them to overcome their bedazzlement and do their jobs?
Comments :
The nuclear bill passed in committee
Obama did not say in his quote that it passed the full Senate.
Regarding the housing bill, has anyone characterized Obama's role, if any, in crafting the bill? How do we know that Obama had no role in crafting it? Dodd "may be too kind" to volunteer information about Obama's role in creating the legislation, but has he been asked about it?
Regarding the first issue: is it not possible that those "miffed Senate staffers" are in fact Republican staffers who are perhaps not so excited about an Obama presidency?
Also, the first issue has gotten a fair amount of coverage IMO. It is not news to me at all.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'd much rather talk about
how John McCain is a grown up, and a political leader who advocates for war
but is seemingly not interested in supporting the troops?
If times are tough I suppose the vets coming home from Iraq could chose to do what John did and marry into money
Is beer money considered more patriotic than a catsup fortune?
It also seems curious that as a POW who has spoken out strongly against torture, he went ahead and voted for to continue the policy when it came time for his feet to hit the street.
It's a bit astonishing that after receiving so many benefits as a veteran that John McCain would chose not to extend the same option to those who will be coming home from Iraq. Unless he thinks they aren't coming home.
I don't understand the gap between McCain's rhetoric, and his actions.
So I guess maybe both McCain and Obama have a little bit in common with stretching the rhetoric, if you will. And if you want to pose that kind of argument.
But, John's voting record against benefits for the troops, equipment for the troops, longer resting periods between service, etc. is a bit more extensive.
But like you say the press hasn't really been on the job of holding McCain to task for his contradictions.
I'm only half stupid
The commentary at RedState wrt the 100 year war is amusing.
They are technically correct but honestly challenged.
Correct:
McCain didn't say he wanted a 100 year war over there. He said the US should stay there as long as it takes to achieve victory, then he rattled off dates with 100 years as one of the last ones he mentioned.
Challenged:
The US is currently occupying Iraq. While our conservative brethren may take issue with that word, a large majority of Iraqi's would prefer America leave Iraq. I very small percentage want the US to stay, and most of them are suckling off the US's golden teat.
Bill Scher
has written a really good post over at Campaigns for America's Future where he says very many things regarding this topic. I'll use this one though:
"Claiming a 100-year occupation in Iraq would be like Germany or Korea reveals an immense lack of foreign policy knowledge, judgment and vision. The situations and political dynamics have absolutely no similarity."
Click the war link
in my post and you will see John McCain speaking in his own words.
He seems to like war(s) in general judging from his comments.
I'm only half stupid
Do you really think
that trotting out various technicalities is going to impress anyone?
No one cares whether Obama embellished his record in the Illinois State Senate.
Most people EXPECT politicians to embellish their records. The lie accusation is perhaps the most often used attack and the least effective attack. Bill Clinton was successfully painted as the most dishonest politician of the past 100 years by the Republicans. He still managed to leave office with extremely high approval ratings.
If the Bush Administration isn't going to be called to task for it's lies and deceptions regarding Iraq, then surely the American people will never care about accusations of lying.
Nice to see you here flyerhawk!
Might not Obama be more susceptible to claims of embellishment than would most politicians, since he portrays himself as providing a "new" kind of politics?
(Of course, the same should hold true for "straight talk express" McCain.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hey Brendan
I really don't think that sort of association of campaign rhetoric to behavior resonates with most voters. It's the sort of thing the politicos notice but Joe Sixpack doesn't much care about. If he believed in the rhetoric beforehand anecdotal examples that counter that rhetoric aren't likely to change that belief.