The Atlantic - Latest Comments in McCain on The View

Re: McCain on The View

bellavida369 — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:46:24 -0000

The K included in the range of ages to be taught sex education means Kindergarten. The ad is actually correct in this regard.

Re: McCain on The View

Gina — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:20:16 -0000

It's obvious that the spoiled elitist members of the view, who have never sacrificed or contributed to America, like McCain has, are in the tank for Obama, while enjoying the benefits from others who have sacrificed and contributed. And while Sherri Shepherd practically offered to drop everything and stump for Mr. Obama ... isn't she the one who couldn't answer Whoopi, as to whether the earth was round or flat? Kudos to McCain for going into the lion's den with this useless group. No wonder they support an unqualified inexperienced candidate like Obama. It takes an empty suit to know one.

Re: McCain on The View

LFC — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:33:49 -0000

Libertarian said... She reduced earmarks when she became governor in 2006, the number of earmarks and the dollar figures have gone down for Alaska every year that she has been governor. Period. She said publicly the state needed to reign in earmarks and she did. Period.

Cause. Effect. Learn about them.

She could have tried to request more, but with her party out of the majority in Congress, it would have been useless. The fact that she couldn't get Stevens, Murkowski, and Young to rake in the pork like they had before (due to both the loss of majority and the fact that every one of them ended up under criminal investigation) means nothing, right?

And please supply a dated quote where she called for a reigning in of earmarks. I'd be interested in hearing when it occurred. Was it the same time that GW and the GOP, after 6 years of pork-laden politics (including some porky years for Wasilla) lost out to the Dems and suddenly started mouthing words about fiscal responsibility? BWAHAHAHA! Sorry, but I'm not impressed by deathbed conversions.

Palin's reduction of earmarks is the same as the bridge. It occurred because she had no choice in the matter.

Per capita this, per capita that doesn't change the basic fact: she reduced earmarks since she became governor by a significant amount.

The fact that she's still asking for more pork per capita for her state means nothing, right? (She reduced it from highest pork per capita to still highest pork per capita, but not quite as high.) Looks to me that the only metric that matters to you is the one you can spin.

Her self description as a fighter against earmarks is a joke. Her f***ing up the Wasilla stadium project (who starts building on land the city doesn't own?) is a joke. Palin is a joke. You can put lipstick on a ninny, but she's still a ninny.

Re: McCain on The View

El Cid — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:57:32 -0000

Planned Parenthood airs TV commercials asking the obvious question when John McCain attacks a program designed to teach kids how to recognize, avoid, and seek help against child molesters:

Planned Parenthood fires back at McCain

MSNBC | September 12, 2008 10:03 AM | Mark Murray

Planned Parenthood, which has endorsed Obama, will begin airing today an aggressive new TV ad to counter the McCain campaign's earlier sex-ed hit on Obama, which charged that the Illinois senator's sole accomplishment in education was legislation teaching "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners."

The Planned Parenthood advertisement fires back, asking if McCain is "just another politician who'll say anything to get elected."

"Every eight minutes a child is sexually abused. That’s why Barack Obama supported legislation to teach children how to protect themselves," a female narrator says in it. "Now John McCain is twisting the facts and attacking Sen. Obama. Doesn’t McCain want our children to protect themselves from sex offenders? Or after 26 years in Washington is he just another politician who’ll say anything to get elected?"

Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye justifies the response ad, saying: "It was important to set the record straight. [The McCain ad] clearly distorts both Obama's record and the bill."

Indeed, non-partisan fact-checkers have criticized the McCain ad, noting that the legislation didn't teach the birds and bees to kindergartners -- instead it taught "age-appropriate" sex education to help warn children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators. Moreover, although Obama voted for this legislation, he didn't sponsor it and it didn't pass, as the ad implies.

Sye tells First Read the response ad will run in the Denver and Pittsburgh markets, where he says the McCain advertisement is running. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards also has penned a letter to the McCain campaign asking them to take down its sex-ed ad.

This is the second anti-McCain TV ad Planned Parenthood has aired. The first blasted the Arizona senator in July for his eight-second pause after being asked if he thought it was fair for health insurance companies to cover Viagra but not birth control.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/12/1382564.aspx

Technically, it's the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, their PAC I guess.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/campaigns/282.htm

Re: McCain on The View

really? — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:53:11 -0000

@Libertarian: Problem is, Palin hasn't been talking about her opposition to earmarks in an amorphous sense - rather, she's centered her anti-pork stance around her opposition to something she didn't oppose.

Instead of stating her strengths directly, she went after a glib quote. So rather than focus on her anti-pork record, she focused on the most egregious exception to that record, trying to harness its noteriety. And the truth doesn't square with that narrative.

Re: McCain on The View

Curtis — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:58:37 -0000

The crazy thing about the earmarks is that nobody but McCain-Palin brought them into the discussion. If she didn't from the moment she was picked start lying about it, all we would really be talking about is what a good governor she had been, winning some projects that have merit, and turning the Bridge to Nowhere into different valuable public works projects to benefit the state. It is what good governors do. But they decided to crusade against her own record, and then lie about it being her record. That is just nuts.

Shifting gears, one of the reasons I think Obama has been correct not to attack McCain as a flip-flopper is the extent to which he has sold his soul to win the nomination. To win the nomination, he had to move hard right on so many issues that he doesn't really care about. So take him at his word that he really is a radical right-winger, as he has been campaigning for the last year, and then cream him when it turns out that Republicans and their failed ideas are really really unpopular.

The last thing Obama wants is for people to remember the McCain of 2000 when he was attractive to independents.

This thing is going to swing huge to Obama after the debates, especially the first one on foreign affairs. He will appear the one who is more principled, more in command, and have the temperment required to be President. And once he has crossed the threshold of people being comfortable with him as commander in chief, then McCain will be done.

Bottom line is that this is still way Obama's election to lose.

Re: McCain on The View

nutsokitty — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:34:02 -0000

Point taken that she reduced earmark requests to her state. So why did she and the campaign have to fabricate a story about the Bridge to Nowhere? Why not just state the facts from the beginning?

The issue isn't that she found religion regarding earmarks, but the fact that she came out of the gate with a fanciful story about her resistance to earmarks. She got caught in a lie and continued to repeat it. That is what all of the fuss is about. It's about credibility and the McCain-Palin ticket's lack thereof.

Re: McCain on The View

Marc Adin — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:26:21 -0000

hey tnc,

i laid all the mccain story out for you and your readers. it was well researched and a close to truth as i could find. i'll say it again: he's been a liar and coward and has been since at least his days at the academy. i know what he did at the academy, and have first hand knowledge of a number of events that are detailed in my earlier, lengthy post.

it wasn't a comment, it was good reporting, not some shit i pulled out of my ass. don't give me that american hero shit. it doesn't take courage to be a POW. it's known as getting fucked during a war. he got shot, down, and was taken prisoner. so what? i was wounded 3 times in vn and have 3 bronze stars. so what? what about all the doods who were killed [58,000 and wounded, 300,000 +/-]? if he's a hero, so are the doods at gitmo.

"...so if they say this is a different McCain, I'll take their word." you sound like a 20 year old naive white kid, for chrissake. i'd be careful about listening to them. they don't seem to know history, or are part and parcel of the fucked establishment press. be careful or you're going to get burned by your colleagues, when your back is turned.

Re: McCain on The View

MoeLarryAndJesus — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:14:31 -0000

Libertarian writes: "She reduced earmarks when she became governor in 2006, the number of earmarks and the dollar figures have gone down for Alaska every year that she has been governor. Period. She said publicly the state needed to reign in earmarks and she did. Period.

Per capita this, per capita that doesn't change the basic fact: she reduced earmarks since she became governor by a significant amount."

That's astonishingly stupid, since she has no power to reduce earmarks. She has no power to grant them. She doesn't even have power to request them directly - the Alaskan Congressional delegation has to do that.

Ted Stevens lost some of his ability to pull earmarks when the Repigs lost control. He lost even more this year when his legal problems cropped up.

Palin deserves no credit for reducing earmarks to Alaska because she had NOTHING to do with it. You might as well give her credit for Tom Brady's knee injury.

Re: McCain on The View

Libertarian — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:06:07 -0000

Are you seriously trying to credit any decrease in Alaska's earmarks to Palin, rather than to the staggeringly obvious fact that the GOP lost control of Congress?

---------------

She reduced earmarks when she became governor in 2006, the number of earmarks and the dollar figures have gone down for Alaska every year that she has been governor. Period. She said publicly the state needed to reign in earmarks and she did. Period.

Per capita this, per capita that doesn't change the basic fact: she reduced earmarks since she became governor by a significant amount.

Re: McCain on The View

charlotte — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:36:16 -0000

Nothing like parking your ass on a studio sofia in downtown Manhattan, surrounded by women, and lettin' the little ladies know that you're keen on repealing Roe vs. Wade. The View crew did themselves some good here and McCain looked like the sorry and corrupt follow he's been all along. Go figure.

Re: McCain on The View

Just Karl — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:40:36 -0000

McCain wants change alright. He wants to turn back the clock. I thought Whoopie's point about strict Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court was devastating. She made McCain appear to be someone who wants to move the country backwards, maybe not all the way back to the Civil War, but backwards still. Those ladies ate his lunch. fat joke deleted

Re: McCain on The View

Emily — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:16:43 -0000

"I also think most non frothing at the mouth individuals are going to understand that you can't simply REFUSE hundreds of millions of dollars that the state has been relying on for several years. To do so would not only be political suicide but it would be extremely damaging to the state."

Which is why McCain's goal of slashing earmarks so that he can afford to cut taxes on the wealthy is a terrible one. I have no objection to earmarks - I'm sure some of them are a little bit ridiculous, but some of them fund good programs that do good things for states and citizens. But objecting to earmarks is pretty key to the McCain campaign (both to his "maverick" branding and to his stated economic policy plans), and it's totally noteworthy that his VP pick isn't on the same page with him on that issue.

Re: McCain on The View

LFC — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:53:05 -0000

Libertarian said... When Palin gets a chance to explain how significantly she reduced Alaska earmarks, the public is giong to wonder what all the fuss is about.

Are you seriously trying to credit any decrease in Alaska's earmarks to Palin, rather than to the staggeringly obvious fact that the GOP lost control of Congress?

Uuuuuuuh, yeah. Nice try.

Re: McCain on The View

Deborah — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:41:01 -0000

Andrew has a good point about the lying: Why the hell are they lying now? You do this stuff 2 weeks before the election, when there's not time for the "but that is not correct Sir" stuff to get traction.

When Palin gets a chance to explain how significantly she reduced Alaska earmarks, the public is giong to wonder what all the fuss is about.

When she gets a chance? What the hell has she had for the last 2 weeks?

She asked for earmarks. Many of them. More per capita than other states. And McCain repeatedly said she didn't. The Bridge to Nowhere is the small-scale example of this: Claim the opposite of what happened, that you turned down pork rather than asking for more, and keep repeating.

The point isn't who asked for money for scientific research and hospitals and infrastructure and money-wasting boondoggles and everything else that goes into earmarks; the point is the lying.

They won't even admit their reporting on the earmark issue is getting pretty close to being outright falsehoods, so they're calling Palin and McCain liars over and over again.

They're calling them liars because they lied. They're calling them liars over and over again because after being called out on the lies, they repeated them at volume. There is no rule that the press can only call you a liar once, then has to go report on Lance Armstrong's return to cycling for the rest of the week. She did not reject earmarks. She did not say "thanks but no thanks."

Re: McCain on The View

MikeCee — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:55:33 -0000

How frickin embarasing for the MSM that it took hardcore Joy Behar and Whoopie to finally ask McCain a question and...wait for it...a follow-up question!!

You could see his famous temper flaring..the C-word was almost there! He thought he was doing a bring in the female vote fluff peice and he got slammed. What an idiot.

Re: McCain on The View

Libertarian — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:51:15 -0000

The press is destroying their own credibility. The public already doesn't trust the press.

When Palin gets a chance to explain how significantly she reduced Alaska earmarks, the public is giong to wonder what all the fuss is about.

I also think most non frothing at the mouth individuals are going to understand that you can't simply REFUSE hundreds of millions of dollars that the state has been relying on for several years. To do so would not only be political suicide but it would be extremely damaging to the state.

But, the press doesn't want to report this, they won't even admit their reporting on the earmark issue is getting pretty close to being outright falsehoods, so they're calling Palin and McCain liars over and over again.

On balance, given the sickening media and pundit reaction to Palin's family issues, I believe the public will be turned off by this.

All McCain needs is one good add that packages the reductions in earmarks while she was governor....in contrast to Obama's requests.

Re: McCain on The View

Deborah — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:46:35 -0000

Can you imagine if Obama was lying like this everyday? The media would be eating him alive. But since it's McCain, you hear 'McCain must not know what his campaign is doing'.

In the spring we had "McCain is pandering but it's okay because he does it badly." This month we have "That was a dreadful and shocking lie for the McCain camp to say in a commercial; I'm sure McCain himself didn't know." (To quote Carville recently.) It's ridiculously condescending--if he doesn't know what's going on in his own presidential campaign, how in hell can you want him to be president? Because he'd be thinking noble POW thoughts alone in his office while Schmidt and Davis did unpleasant but necessary things out in the world?

I see why Mark McKinnon stepped down.

Hillary tried this with Tuzla: I lied? I'll keep saying it, you'll get tired of repeating that I'm lying, and my narrative will become the truth. It worked then; the press better not cave now. The repeated lies about his pick's qualifications--opposing the bridge to nowhere, rejecting pork--need to be called lies.

Re: McCain on The View

John Henry — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:37:07 -0000

McCain (to the press): You all SUCK! Leave me alone. Leave my VP alone. BUT, my friends, write a positive narrative about me no matter how many lies I tell, even if I tell them about you.

Should Schmidt be sued for malpractice?

I was one of those Democrats in 2000 that thought, for a Republican, John McCain is a pretty reasonable guy. I may not agree with him, but I could count on him to tell me the truth. We can have an honest discussion about the issues.

When I started watching him in the primaries I thought this guy is a lousy politician. He seemed to think that sincerity meant getting in front of an audience and deliberately telling them what they did not want to hear in order to prove his authenticity. What a concept?!?! Tell the autoworkers in Michigan your jobs are not coming back and expect them to vote for you. 'Is this some revolutionary strategy?', I thought in Bill Murray's voice in What About Bob.

Ever since he became front-runner, its become painfully obvious that his poor judgment pre-Palin disqualified him. What conservative in their right mind wants to run with Lieberman? The 'Disloyalty Ticket' sounds like a real winner. Schmidt took over and it became the 'Get Elected or Die Tryin Ticket'. Its pure ambition wrapped in a ad-hoc down-home, good ole boy, guns, god, race, and capitalist-as-populist package.

Its really satisfying that their arrogance - the View is soft interview - caught up with them.

Some people think lying is an effective strategy. I think it is in a narrow window, i.e. day before the election. But, in a longer timeframe, there is bound to be blowback, especially since everyone is connected now. Fact-checks go out in internet time.

They also told too many lies. The press is forced to report them as lies for fear of losing their credibility. The more lies they tell, the more the press reports it, the more instances their base thinks, 'Ok, that's definitely a blatant lie. Do I still support him or not?'.

Re: McCain on The View

frankie d — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:26:19 -0000

amazingly, the women on "the view" have been doing the best job, consistently, on interviews of political candidates this election cycle.

between joy and whoopi and occasionally barbara walters - who was a pretty serious journalist, way, way back when - they've put lots of politicians on the hot seat. the politicians go on the program thinking that it'll be an easy way to connect with a daytime audience of women and they leave with joy's and whoopi's foot up their butts.

i check to see if a major figure is coming on the show and make certain i record it.

now, it also says something very sad about the state of our media, that this show probably provides the most hard-hitting interviews around.

(certainly other people are capable, like olbermann, but the problem is that lots of politicians will not go on his show. they get lulled into a false sense of security about "the view" and don't realize what they've gotten into until it's too late.)

i'll wager this: we won't see sarah palin on that show.

not after today.

Re: McCain on The View

MoeLarryAndJesus — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:38:04 -0000

SHF writes: "He also lied (again) about Palin never taking earmarks as AK governor. It's surreal; can you imagine if Obama was lying like this everyday? The media would be eating him alive. But since it's McCain, you hear 'McCain must not know what his campaign is doing'."

If he keeps this up people are going to start to wonder if senility is creeping in.

And this bullshit about Palin "reforming Washington" is seriously stupid. If she makes it there McCain will stick her away in a back room and forget about her. She'll be as invisible as Quayle was.

Re: McCain on The View

rikyrah — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:22:51 -0000

This is an OT for you, THC.

While in Chicago, maybe you can drop by WVON -1690AM.

1000 E. 87th Street

Get a little publicity for your blog in the Black community.

The lineup

6-9 am : Roland Martin

9 am - 12 Noon : Santita Jackson

3 - 7 pm: Cliff Kelley

7-10 pm: Matt McGill & Perri Smalls

I'm sure if you gave them a phonecall, they would love to have you on the station. Tell the Black community of Chicago what you're doing on this blog.

Advertise!!!

Re: McCain on The View

SHF — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:21:25 -0000

He also lied (again) about Palin never taking earmarks as AK governor. It's surreal; can you imagine if Obama was lying like this everyday? The media would be eating him alive. But since it's McCain, you hear 'McCain must not know what his campaign is doing'.

Re: McCain on The View

Asher — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:18:40 -0000

Yeah, he has changed. Read this 90s NY Times profile by Michael Lewis:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EEDF1438F936A15756C0A961958260

Re: McCain on The View

NT — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:16:51 -0000

ABC? Attacking? After that horrible debate ABC News ran between the Democrat nominees where they asked Obama dumb "daytime"-esque questions, like about the flag pin?

I never saw it coming. It's about time.