More of the same old rubbish, smear politics from Palin.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Palin makes Obama terrorist claim

One thing I noticed from the two debates so far, and closely checking various 'fact-checkers' afterwards, was that the Republicans far more often than the Democrats resorted to lying. In fact it's hard to isolate a single case where Obama or Biden said anything untrue that couldn't be put down to a small inaccuracy (e.g. Biden said McCain said such-and-such "as early as December" when actually it turns out he said it in November). McCain and Palin on the other hand seem quite happy to just outright lie (McCain more often than Palin, but perhaps one can put that down to senility/dementia setting in).

Personally I find it to be a pretty sad approach to politics, whether its candidates lying, or the party using smear-type advertising. And it speaks volumes about both integrity and the substance of their campaign/policies.

Won't THEY both end up with their foot stuck so far back in their mouths if they don't win the White House?!!

After all, people grew tired of Bush's lies, and won't put up with another Repub getting his AND HER grubby hands on the keys to the highest office in the land!!

There has never been a woman in office as VP before - what makes them think they'll be one now?

Palin has shown herself to be one of the lowest creatures in politics with this remark, she should be ashamed of herself.

Yeah, what a crock of shit!!

This should DEFINITELY nail her coffin shut.

I swear that every time that individual opens her mouth, her foot gets stuck in it even more!! It has gotten so that I don't even want to hear her talk any more because nothing comes out of it but pure crap!! She spews a whole lot of bullshit and doesn't know when to stop!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if this kind of attack hurts McCain more than Obama.

I think it would hurt McCain's chances more.

I think since McCain has already lost so much credibility it would hurt him more.

He's lost so much until it isn't funny now.

There seems to be two problems here though;

1. If McCain gets in, it'll be just like Bush never left because the same crap with a Repub will continue.

2. If Obama wins, things will eventually get better, but I'm deeply afraid that someone might try to assinate him!! An attempt or a threat has already been made!

Is it rubbish and smear politics if its true? That's a yes or no question.

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Don't tell me he just made mistakes. He practiced each and every one of his answers for hours with his handlers prior to the debate.

Now list Palin or McCain lies.

You're right, Rasczak, there are no lies which have been told by either Palin, McCain or anyone associated with that campaign.

You guys are so good at getting to the heart of things. But I think I'll still vote for Obama. Not that it matters at this point because it looks like its a done deal for Obama.

Ummm ... no it's not. It's way too vague to be taken seriously let alone answered with a yes/no reply. Try again.

Firstly, if you are going to copy/paste, perhaps you should give accreditation at least - otherwise it would seem to be a form of plagiarism in any serious discussion. It could also have done with some re-writing to try to improve the grammar and structure, so that half of it doesn't read like something from a Palin-Couric interview.

Secondly, no I don't think I'm going to waste the time in a tit for tat hunt down of specifics. You can use Google, and you can read. Open your mind and look for yourself, perhaps trying to not exclusively read on the 'all lefties are evil parasites trying to add colour to my nice pretty black and white world' sites where I'm sure you picked up your list. I know you have an intellect (you occasionally slip up and expose it) so perhaps apply it here?

Oh cool - I just realised we get round 3 tomorrow

Should be fun.

You're the one that called McCain's comments a smear. I asked you if McCain's comments are true, are they still a smear? What is vague about that? The comments can't be a smear and not be a smear at the same time can they? Its very specific, not vague at all, if the particular words of McCain that you called a smear are factual, are they a smear?

Have you ever heard the left say anything about George W. Bush that was a smear? If so, what?

Have any Obama/Biden supporters said anything about McCain or Palin you would characterize as a smear? How about the ad attacking McCain about email that Obama approved which Biden called "terrible."

You could just end this and admit you're applying a double standard - that anything damaging, true or not, said about Obama/Biden is a smear, and anything, regardless how nasty, untrue, or irrelevant, said about those you want to see defeated is ok with you.

Saying something negative usually doesn't qualify as a 'smear' in my mind if it is true. But, what you aren't getting is that for your yes/no question ("Is it factual?") to be valid depends entirely on the validity of the original statement, in terms of it being a quantitative statement. Prime example is stating someone has been "palling around with such-and-such". That is not a quantifiable thing to say about someone. It's a play to the media and people's common ability to subconciously take tiny sound bites and turn them into pseudo-facts in their own minds. For further examples, would it be fair to say the USA has been "palling around with" terrorists and dictators like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? After all, there was a time when they had close affiliations. To my mind "palling around with" suggests something recreational - a choice of friends (not to mention something even vaguely recent).

Putting aside the fact that nobody even needs to bother 'smearing' GWB - he makes a fool of himself on a daily basis and even seems to wear that as a badge of honour at time. Putting that aside, no, nothing springs to mind - feel free to enlighten me. If you provide an example, I'll give you my opinion on whether it seems to qualify as a "smear".

Believe it or not, we don't get the US TV or print ads here in Australia, so I'm not familiar with the ad you refer to. I have seen reference to them using the fact that McCain's knowledge of computers/google is practically non-existent, as an indicator that he is somewhat out of touch with the modern world. That seems a valid point, though may have been done in a less than dignified manner (I don't know as I haven't seen it), which might perhaps be what Biden alluded to.

No, I'm not applying double standards at all - you are assuming again about my opinions, based on your categorizing me as a 'liberal' in your own worldview of 'two types of people'. I don't find 'smear' campaigning to be dignified from anyone, and I think I have said so here before. I'd prefer it if campaigning was kept factual, but I do acknowledge that like it or not, politics is a dirty, deceptive game, and the overwhelming majority of participants in it, play dirty. That doesn't make it dignified or at all impressive. What impresses me is the minority of players who remain above it - to me it shows a quality of character. That would impress me whatever the person's political persuasion might be. 'Smear' campaigning is not something exclusively used by conservative politicians and their campaigns - it just happens that that is the example at hand here. If you have other examples to mention, please do.

Let's work with your definition. The facts:

Here’s a summary of the ways Obama is connected to Ayers:

* Obama held a political meeting in Ayer’s home.
* Obama and Ayers worked together on various projects.
* Obama served on a charity board with Ayers.
* Ayers hosted a fund raiser for Obama when Obama rand for state office in the ’90s.
* Obama promoted Ayers book in 1997.
* Obama and Ayers exchanged emails and phone calls as recently as 2005.

Oh, and here's your link.

That definitely qualifies as associations.
That definitely qualifies as close affiliations.
That definitely qualifies as "vaguely recent."
That definitely qualifies as "a choice."

As for recreation and friendship, its arguable the relationship was more professional and geared towards promoting one another's agendas. This particular distinction doesn't really work in your favor does it? A simple recreational friendship might be easier to excuse than the type the two actually had. In which case, Palin's use of the term "palling around" is actually being kind to Obama.

BTW, if we can't count these "associations" because they aren't recent enough, does that mean we can't count his "community organizing" either?

Does that mean that McCain's history with the Keating Five over 20 years ago is irrelevant, and Obama's bringing it up against him now is a smear?

Calling Ayers a terrorist is a stretch. He didn't kill anyone. In fact he used careful planning not to. All he did was destroy public property to protest the Vietnam War.

Most people I know (including my father who was drafted) see this war as a mistake.

That means Ayers had the right idea, but just went about it foolishly. But he was young. Of course all this was forty years ago and now irrelevant.

On the other hand, how much government property did McCain destroy when he crashed all those planes? Is he really in a position to judge who is the better steward of public property?

And no, Obama and Ayers are not close pals.

American Heritage Dictionary:

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

We have a mechanism in place since the birth of this nation for influencing policy decisions that do not involve bombing people, places, or things. It is called voting and free speech. Ayers has said in recent years he regrets not doing more which erases any notion that he can be forgiven because his violent criminal terrorist activity took place when he was younger.

Saying that "McCain destroyed government property" because his aircraft was shot down during battle with the enemy makes it impossible to take you seriously.

McCain destroyed five planes. What's that, a couple million dollars?

Let's not forget McCain was a bomber too.

Again, your attempt to play the moral equivelency card makes it impossible to take you seriously.

Your attempt to play "the moral equivelency card" card makes it impossible to take you seriously.