I agree with you in spirit, but I assumed that when Huckabee made that crack about Palin's votes exceeding Biden's, he was counting ALL her elections as mayor. I don't know how many times she was elected.

The Palin choice tells us this is not just another election but whether or not the country is going to be handed over to James Dobson and his gang of thug theocrats or not. They are in to the end now, and Palin is their ticket. They would wish McCain a short and brief presidency before he croaks so that their dream of founding a fundamentalist dominion can be fulfilled. The assimilation of the Republican Party into the extreme and fundamentalist religious right is now complete. Only the nation remains. So we have a lot to work for in this election.

Kristen,

This bullshit, blatantly partisan hack post is why I am a registered Independent.

You mention the number of votes she received for her first 8 years of experience.

Why don't you get some nuts and post the number of votes she received in the race for Governor of Alaska?

Since you are such a partisan hack who cannot see beyond your party loyalty, then let me post the number of votes in her 2+ more years of executive experience:

114,697

As for Barack Obama's experience in the Ohio State Senate and US Senate, please don't try to equivocate that with Sarah Palin's 8+ years of executive experience as a Mayor and Governor.

As a matter of fact, stop making posts about the VP slot.

Voters do not vote for the VP. If they did, then Walter Mondale would have beat Reagan in 1984.

Use your time and energy against McCain. These posts on Palin look nothing more than a shrill attack from a radical left wing feminist who cannot stand that a woman with traditional values, a marriage of 20 years to her high school sweetheart, and 5 beautiful kids has the best of both worlds.

I wonder how McCain would meet Giuliani's test? McCain commanded a naval aviation training squadron from 1977 to 1978. Has he ever "run" anything else?

Actually, the Giuliani test suggests that Sarah Palin is far better prepared to be President of the U.S.A. than John McCain. Maybe McCain chose her because he needed someone with more experience at running stuff to show him how it's done.

This is what I found:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/2008/people/ak/akgv.php Elected Office: Wasilla City Cncl., 1992-96; Wasilla Mayor, 1996-2002.

Election Results Candidate Total Votes Percent 2006 general Sarah Palin (R) 114,697 48%
Tony Knowles (D) 97,238 41%
Andrew Halcro (I) 22,443 9%
Other 2,944 1%
2006 primary Sarah Palin (R) 51,443 51%
John Binkley (R) 30,349 30%
Frank Murkowski (R) 19,412 19%
2002 general Frank Murkowski (R) 129,279 56%
Fran Ulmer (D) 94,216 41%
Other 7,989

That Almanac has some fascinating prose about her--worth reading, and checking to see if it all fits the other biographies of her including what http://www.ridenbaugh.com/ says about her college experience.

"As for Barack Obama's experience in the Ohio State Senate and US Senate...

Ohio?

Okay ... that means Joe Biden got more votes the last time he was elected to the United States Senate than Sarah Palin got for Governor of Alaska.

What is it with Republicans and irrelevant comparisons? Palin compares her previous elected office (eight years as a small-town Mayor) not to Obama's previous elected office (eight years in the Illinois State Senate) but with his first job out of college. Giuliani measures Palin's election as Mayor against Biden's performance in this year's primary (and gets it wrong).

Somehow, the whole Republican party (except Karl Rove) seems to be dazzled by eight years as mayor of a town nobody outside Alaska ever heard of before, but thumbs its nose at eight years representing 200,000 constituents in the Illinois State Senate.

Sarah Palin, great new celebrity. The Paris Hilton of Alaska!

Here you go Kristin...

Think Progress reports that Romney said the following:

"And I have one more recommendation for energy conservation — let’s keep Al Gore’s private jet on the ground!"

According to Al Gore's spokesperson: "Gore doesn’t own a jet."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/04/romney-gore-jet/

The Colbert Report interviewed the Colorado man who has been advocating for Palin for several years. Perhaps one of the curious and resourceful people interested in the source will verify that the advocacy comes from Colorado Springs. James Dobson focus on the family headquarters is located there.

I find it interesting that the RNC insured the Cty of St. Paul for ten million dollars in damages resulting from the civil suits that will result from the brutal actions of the police. And yet we see little interest on this site for the demonstration of a police state and the ability to pull it all off without mainstream media notice. The fact that permmission was given to act out against first amendment activity should be alarming. True too is that Track Palin, far from being a volunteeer, stole a bottle of vodka, trashed school buses and managed to avoid jail time by getting in the military. He left Alaska and has been living in Michigan. Ah. Family values.

"Giuliani:

But he's never -- he's never run a city. He's never run a state. He's never run a business. He's never run a military unit. He's never had to lead people in crisis. He is the least experienced candidate for president of the United States in at least the last 100 years.

Not a personal attack, a statement of fact. Barack Obama has never led anything, nothing, nada. From Wikipedia:

After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP)...During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000...

Last I checked, a director definitely leads the organization - especially one where you almost increased the budget six times over and went from one staff member to 13.

===========

This is wonderful! This is awesome!!! This is great!!!

Quick, send it to Obama, and he can use it is his next campaign stop, and show Mayor Rudi who is really the experienced candidate!! LOL

Community Organizer??? ROTFLMAO!!!!

Community Organizers of the World, Unite! Obama is your fearless and EXPERIENCED leader!

Well, the worst foreign policy team in the history of the United States was chock full of experience: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., Look what that got us.

We'd be better off picking a president by lottery at a soup kitchen than to put a bunch of Republican ideologues back in office.

It is good to know that Obama won't use your pathetic community organizer defense.

I saw him on FoxNews, and he took on LoudMouth Bill and did really well. You should watch Obama, even if you can't stand Bill! Obama is well spoken and credible (and Joe Biden was right, he looked clean too!)

GoBama! Just don't Go on your community organizer experience.

Weren't you a state senator also? Oh, yeah.
Present!
Present! Yes, Sen Obama is Present!!
Present!! Yes or No? Ah, neither. Sen Obama votes PRESENT

...umm, not directly responsive to the post, but wasn't Jesus Christ a community organizer?

The dark side of the attitude trashing community organizing is the fear community organizing (not to mention voter registration) creates in those who have a vested interest in keeping the masses uneducated, fearful of each other and not exercising their voter franchise.

I suspect another unvoiced fear of the Republicans is the possibility that if Obama is elected, he will come into office with a completely new huge data-base of citizens who can begin to look at their other elected representatives in 2010.

Randy2

So Obama is now like Jesus Christ?

Obama, The Chosen One (Rep Pelosi) Obama, The Messiah (his devoted followers) Obama, like Jesus Christ (Randy2)

Wow! More great campaign strategy from BlueOregon idiots.

Go with it, it might just work!!

Harry, you are obviously not a Christian. So just to clue you in... One of the key aspects of Christianity is that we should all strive to be like Jesus Christ and follow his examples.

Yo Harry, again paraphrasing a friend, Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate a governor. (Of course you are incapable of interpreting this bit of screwball humorous "analogy" as anything but a literal comparison of Obama to Jesus.)

Yah, it was a bummer when Harry thought to use me as a tool [darker reference points intended] in one of his scrums. Hah.

I tried to post something filled with factoid-checkin' URLs, but the site won't let it load, dammit. You'd be sending a bigger check, for sure.

I'd like to see the day when Blue Oregon exists for the progressive community and not a toilet for the McCain/Nader trolls. How's about it, Kari???

On another brighter note today in Indiana Barack Obama confronts the fiction about the Republican ticket as the "change" agent.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/obama-targets-m.html
"Everywhere I go we've been talking about change, that's been the theme of the campaign. And we must be on to something, because I notice now everyone's talking about change now.

John McCain has said that change is coming!

Now think about this coming from the party that's been in charge for 8 years, they've been running the show! Been up in the White House, John McCain brags, '90% of the time I have voted with George Bush. He and I we we're right there' and suddenly he's the change agent!

He says I'm going to tell those lobbyists that their days in Washington are over. Who's he gonna tell? Is he gonna tell his campaign chairman who's one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell all the folks who are running his campaign who are the biggest corporate lobbyist in Washington? Who is it that he's going to tell that change is coming?

I mean come on!  They must think you're stupid!

I mean, maybe what they're saying is 'watch out George Bush' you know except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove style of politics – except for all that, we're really going to bring change to Washington! We're gonna shake things up! What are these guys talking about? Do you think we haven’t been paying attention over the past 8 years?

(Obama then went point by point through education, tax policy, energy policy and health care telling voters why McCain’s version of change is not change like the kind he will bring.)

I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change. And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person. That is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something. You can't just make stuff up. You can’t just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear.

Don't be fooled. These are the folks who have been in charge. John McCain's party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge."

Here we go then - it's from that infamous Kilkenny letter, and various sites vetting her comms.

The letter - mudflats.wordpress

The Nation - the_word_from_wasilia

The New York Times - "wasilia"

Zimbio - looks like a wiki

YoungOregonMoonbat claimed, "These posts on Palin look nothing more than a shrill attack from a radical left wing feminist..."

I want to defend Kristin against these scurrilous attacks. She most definitely is not "radical" or "left wing". It's only on right-of-center, DP-worshiping blogs like this that she can seem to be so.

Ignoring that emotions and not facts are what is driving the McCain/Palin campaign it could be added, on the subject of experience, that after surviving a recall which was a reaction to Sarah's attempt to fire the Library director for not banning the books Sarah didn't like, she hired an administrator for Wasilla. Sarah took a cut in pay; looks like she is making up for it now.

It is easy to see why she appeals to the end of times people. My personal experience is that they can not be reasoned with.

Could not find the thread where a self-described Right-Wing troll posted, so will save the entirety of my disquisition on the nuances of what that poster might have meant... However, Sarah and friends, don't let Harry's insistent, mediocre bludgeoning away at raconteurism induce you to pissing matches and hasty posts.

troll An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.

Dictionary of Computing

Not saying Harry is particularly subtle (personal insight moments offered to all here), but are we here to squabble or are we here to debate?

ACK! Forgive me Kristin! Sarah P on the brain! Don't hit me!

The omission of Obama's leadership skills and the experience he just demonstrated in winning the Democratic primary against a highly skilled opponent is conveniently ignored by all who denigrate him. I think it contradicts at least five separate attack statements on his alleged lack of executive experience.

Genop, was thinking the same. Incisive, clean. For all the noise and bluster I leak, I recognize clarity and love its expression. Breathe it in!

I think it is time for Biden and Obama to turn nasty. Palin is outright lying and smiling at the same time. People are eating up her pat, snarky lines and forgetting that she is a nobody politician from a tiny state. Somebody is feeding her great lines, and her delivery is magnificent - - sneering, snide, and cruel.

Read Glenn Greenwald's Sept. 4 post from his blog at Salon - - he nails it firmly - - Republicans are vicious and will frame Obama as weak, elite, foreign, etc. and frame McCain as the patriotic war veteran with his perky sidekick. Yuck. But it works, people. They are trying to make you forget the last 8 years of misrule in this country! No issues, just insults.

I recommend that Obama/Biden step up the innuendo some. Throw out a few good lines labelling Palin as the minor inexperienced politician that she is, and McCain as the doddering, rich, old fool.

(Harry is back from enjoying a wonderful day in the sun..)

<h2>"Oh YEAH! Jeffrane (sic), that is just beautiful."</h2>

Come on Krisstin (sic), get Jefffrane's name correct!

Good Job, Jefffrane!! I agree with you on your point, which is extremely valuable and accurate.

Jefffrane says (and is worth repeating, so I do): "What needs to be pointed out, over and over again is that Rudy has used this argument before. Except, well, he was talking about John McCain."

Please do.
Point it out "over and over again".

The truth is that Gov Palin has more EXECUTIVE experience than all three Senators combined. (The Ex-Mayor of NYC says "both (democratic) Senators combined" but I just add the additional truth point for veracity.) Keep pointing that out "over and over again".

Yes, it does expose and embarass Sen McCain somewhat, but he is old enough, and comfortable enough in his maverick status, to take that implied insult knowing that any additional on the job training in EXECUTIVE execution that McCain needs to get, he can get from his VP.

Too bad for Obama, that he: - is not secure enough in his 4 years experience in the US Senate running for President, and a few more years in the state senate, that he has to brag about being a 'community organizer' for 3 years PRIOR to his law school. Does anyone even CARE what Biden did before law school?!! What about Bill or Hillary? Bonus points for anybody who can educate us what jobs those three held prior to law school? (Bill: dope smoking Rhodes Scholar; how about Joe and Hill?) Shows just how thin Obama's resume really is. How many lawyers in their 40s even list any experience pre law school?

-could not even describe what a community organizer does. From his own book, Obama writes: “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly,” Obama wrote. “Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change,” he continued. “Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”

So there you have it.

Executive experience.

Small town mayor. Or community organizer. Governor of Alaska or State Senator and Campaigner for President.

PS to joe dan walls: "Yo Harry, again paraphrasing a friend, Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate a governor."

Yo joe dan walls, you are a liar. You did NOT paraphrase a friend. You just subscribe to the Democrats talking points. See below for your exposure:

Jonathan Martin of The Politico, posting the “Democrat reader email of the day,” which read “Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

I haven't noted any McCain campaign presence in Oregon. I also note that there haven't been any presidential campaign ads locally. I suspect McCain has written off Oregon while the Obama campaign has been working hard here.

With all the rhetoric from the right wing about culture wars and McCain's biography, the claim by his campaign that the choice is not about issues, the quiet but powerful voter registration drive going on throughout the country is going to make a difference in Nov.

Example: voter registration changes in Oregon, Jan-July 2008 Repubs- minus 13,000 Dems- plus 122,00 net change of 145,000 for Dems.

By Oct. in the state of Virginia in similar period, the Dems will have added 290,000 Dem. voters. Enlarging the electorate is how Obama and the Democrats will win this thing. Nationally the AP lists Dem. party registration at 11 % higher than Republican. More people are registering Democrat because issues matter, and the past eight years have brought ruin to this country.

Some information to keep in mind as the campaign unreels: this from the Pew's Upward Mobility Project, found at http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_Upward_Mobility.pdf

Gender and Race Stratifications in SES:

Blacks experience dramatically less upward economic mobility than whites. • Forty-four percent of blacks will remain in the bottom income quintile in adulthood compared with just 25 percent of whites. • Although the vast majority of blacks in the bottom half of the income distribution will exceed their parents’ place in the distribution, the extent of their movement is markedly lower than that of whites. - Only about 35 percent of blacks who start in the bottom half of the income distribution will increase their relative position by 20 percentiles compared to nearly 50 percent of whites. Rates of upward economic mobility are highest for white men, followed by white women, black men and, finally, black women. • The economic mobility gender gap is more pronounced among whites and the economic mobility racial gap is more pronounced among men. Measures of human capital during adolescence, particularly tests scores, could explain the entire black-white upward economic mobility gap. • Individuals, both black and white, with higher academic test scores are more likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile. Both black and white children born in the bottom quintile with median academic test scores are twice as likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile than if they had scores in the lowest percentile of the test score distribution. • Some other factors, such as self-esteem and health, also appear to be important in determining upward economic mobility, but they account for little of the racial gap in economic mobility. • The racial gap in economic mobility out of the bottom quintile remains even when controlling for single- or two-parent families. The new measures introduced in this report can help us to further understand and identify the factors that promote or impede upward economic mobility, a task that is vital to ensure that the American Dream is within the reach of those at the bottom.

Kristin asked, "...if you think BlueOregon so 'right-of-center, DP-worshiping' why do you spend so very, very, very much time here?"

It's my understanding that the great majority of readers here are lurkers, and that they are people who might be open to hearing the truth, such as the fact that Obama is lying about "rejection of lobbying money" or the fact that his foreign policy is essentially the same as McCain's. Believe me, Kristin, if I thought they all were like you, I wouldn't post.

By the way, every time you contribute to Obama because someone says something you don't like, I laugh. I really need a laugh, too, because I "spend so very, very, very much time here". Please send another $10 for my comments.

The truth lies between and it lies nowhere, Harry, Kristin. These are politicians we are talking about. They will all manipulate, they will all lie. They will all posture, they will all flip/collaborate. If we watch without jealousy, we will see the game played.

It might be productive to have a thread for each: "I will send ten dollars to the Obama campaign every time you fix EITHER of these in a lie or obfuscation". In this way we would truly support a thinking, rational, observational practice of democracy, don't you think? In fact, we could possibly become a tiny li'l flagship for holding our leadership accountable to each standard applied to the opposition. Parallel threads when encouraging research. You introduced, "Tell us how Smith fails", let's look equally at "How Merkely (or whomever) fails" so as to remove ourselves from the predictable orbits of emotion and manipulation.

The only fixed aspect in all of this is the Beliefs of those posting. Beliefs are not subject to rational testing. We are practicing old time religion. There may be one or two posters up here who diligently maintain a focus on principles, concepts, academically able to unbraid emotion from aspect. I watch for their all-too-infrequent posts.

The rest of us are up here to emote and to bloviate. And pretend we are thinking, assessing. We ain't.

Palin, I mean McCain, is now up three points in the Gallup Tracking poll. It's all hands on deck, people. Obama and Biden has to come out fighting, rather than continuing their "cool as the other side of the pillow" approach.

And Hillary -- if you're serious about wanting Barack to win, take the lady on. Now.

Mr Kershner--please remember that respect is a two-way street. You have a couple of rhetorical strategies open to you: engage people critically and respectfully, and possibly influence them; or sneer, jeer, and claim a special hold on "truth", an approach that will gain you exactly as much influence as the abusive GOP trolls. Your choice.

Bill R>>"The Palin choice tells us this is not just another election but whether or not the country is going to be handed over to James Dobson and his gang of thug theocrats or not...."

Bill R, what do you do for fun.....Burn churches down, and beat up little kids?

You sound like an extremely angry person w/gender anxiety issues, religous mother-control issues, without Hope.

Can't we all just get along, and end the politics of hate, division and personal destruction? You should embrace Hope as Obama and his Reverend would want you to. That's the only way you'll win in the long run. Repent, and Visit Obama's Trinity United Church Of Christ and make a donation. I will donate $5 in your name as a peace offering.

Peace, Chuck

Mr. Walls: We Americans are far too focused on personality characteristics rather than issues. If all I or the "GOP trolls" have to offer is "sneering and jeering", then don't respond at all. But don't confuse the wheat for the chaff.

We are a militaristic, corporate-dominated polyarchy. Both of our major political parties are complicit in crimes against humanity. Isn't that more important than whether or not someone is "respectful" in saying it?

blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-on-the-ne.

Hi Kristin:

An example of Palin intentionally misquoting Obama during recent speech, and Obama's rebuttal and restatement of his position.

Regards habeas corpus, Gitmo, terrorism and Constitutional respect for human rights and rule of law.

Well, after pissing people off over on some other thread, figured I'd better come over here and EARN the right to exist. Is this thing still alive? We've got a few weeks to go, eh?

SO: LIES, LIES & MORE JOLLY LIES Palin Lie 1, aired 9/11, McCain iterates Palin Lie 1 Sept 3 - Palin/McCain each claim Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy."

Factcheck.org tells us: Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year... a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's... domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent

McCain Lie - A new McCain ad calls Obama a celebrity (true) who says he'll raise taxes on electricity (false).

Factcheck.org tells us: McCain relies on a single quote from Obama who once – and only once so far as we can find – suggested taxing "dirty energy," including coal and natural gas. That was in response to a reporter's suggestion that a tax on wind power could fund education. Obama isn't proposing any new tax on electricity or "dirty energy" as part of his platform, and he never has.

... and an enlightening "lie" I can almost feel glad was told by the Obama campaign - it bears reading to get a clear picture of McCain's anti-abortion stance: Obama's campaign claims McCain will ban ALL abortions. Truculently, the McCain staffer demands we correct the record. That dastard word "All" is the trouble, children. The truth is that he ONLY wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and of COURSE if you are raped or incested or your life at risk you should not be forced to have that child!!! And of course, not ALL states will tighten restrictions. Just many!

"The ad's claim that McCain would 'make abortion illegal' rests on his support for a Constitutional amendment that would go much farther than overturning Roe. Such an amendment, if ratified, would be binding everywhere, not just in states that enact laws against abortion. An amendment would not only make abortion illegal, abortion would become unconstitutional."

I have a little story about that "risk to the mother's life" business. It's a hard one to dx if you are disempowered and find yourself in the hands of anti-abortionists. I had a medically risky pregnancy. Terrified at mysterious and debilitating pain for months on end, I was ignored in the OK IHS, treated as if I'd not spoken a word when I asked shyly, stammeringly if something might be wrong and should I be checked? Did it seem something might be wrong, should I have the baby? Never looking in my face, they made me listen to his heartbeat till I was weeping, then, gaze still averted, sent me out of the hospital to join my emotionally frozen husband waiting in the rig. THAT, dear friends, is ONE way that we DO NOT LEARN if the life of the mother is at risk. It was their preference that I should die in the course of carrying that baby rather than that we should determine the health and legitimacy of the pregnancy and consider the life of the mother. I was shocked! I'd never heard of such patriarchal medicine! And, powerless and marooned in a land with no friends or family to support me, so it was done. A terrified and debilitated young girl was sent away to carry that child no matter the cost to her. He is the star of my life and makes a difference in the world.

However, it was decreed that I should die carrying that child if it should come to that. And this was BEFORE Mr. McCain has gotten his hands on our Constitution.

Thank you, Obama, for the lies that were in this ad. For had I not Factchecked, I'd not have gotten the clarity on McCain's campaign position.

Kristin, may I suggest you add a coda: ten bucks contributed every time an Obama lie serves the greater clarity sorely-needed by the bedizened electorate?

Lies Redux:

McCain Ad Sept 4: "It says Obama "gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways," citing his votes for a 2005 energy bill. But the bill slightly raised taxes on the oil industry overall." (Obama voted for the tax rise, McCain voted against it)

McCain Ad Sept 4: "The ad says Obama is the "most liberal" Senator. But the National Journal rated him the 16th most liberal in his first year and the 10th most liberal in his second. It rated his votes "most liberal" only in 2007, when he was busy campaigning and missed one-third of the votes on which the rating is based". Indeed, Obama's rating is that of "rank and file"... not exactly a fiery changemonger.

* good for us to read for content, as, Obama is a politician, and he will have his problems we must push against too....

McCain Ad Sept 4: The ad uses a partial quote – she "has a record of bi-partisan reform" – from an Aug. 29 Associated Press report.

In fact, the AP report raises some questions about Palin's credentials, saying: "She is younger and less experienced than the first-term Illinois senator, and brings an ethical shadow to the ticket." It also says, "Palin's lack of experience undercuts GOP charges that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief."

More money for Obama:

Washington Post (stumbled upon this as I am researching Palin and the termination of all soveignty for all Alaska natives in the 1970's, the mindset that she has been raised in and will protect) commentary pushing back against Krauthammer's insistence that Obama and Palin are equally inexperienced:

LACK OF EXPERIENCE, UTTER PARTISANSHIP: refutation by Other critics have claimed that Mr. Obama has no foreign policy credentials and that he doesn't reach across the aisle to Republicans.

The most perilous and intricate foreign policy issue is nuclear proliferation. Next to the Non-Proliferation Treaty itself, the most significant nonproliferation measure was the 1991 law created by Sens. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). With Mr. Nunn now retired, Mr. Obama has stepped into his shoes.

In 2005, Mr. Lugar and Mr. Obama went to several countries where proliferation is a risk to view the problem firsthand. They then drew up the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation bill, which President Bush signed into law in 2007.

The measure strengthens the earlier Nunn-Lugar regime and expands it in an effort to reduce the proliferation of shoulder-fired antiaircraft weapons that terrorists could use.

[refutation authored by Robert Sherman, who was executive director of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board from 1994 to 2001, and State Department foreign policy expert from 2002 to 2006.]

RebeccaWhetstine said, "Kristin, may I suggest you add a coda: ten bucks contributed every time an Obama lie serves the greater clarity sorely-needed by the bedizened electorate?"

I assume that you meant "lie about Obama". I recommend that progressives give ten bucks for every Obama lie to a third party candidate.

About nuclear non-proliferation: Is Obama going to add to his platform the promise to live up to our own obligations under the international treaty to which we are signatory? (Does this count as a lie or merely a deception?)

Ok, dear, doing my civic duty here - time to send a few more bucks. Now it's "Obama Nation".

Does this count as "media" and "lies or truth"? A good mind I can't match for clarity and lack of emotive bluster tells me they try to be even-handed, but lean to the mainstream, so we control for bias in that regard when we read them.

Yes, I know this is the lazywench's way to research. But here they are, some dough is owed to the Big O:

FactCheck.org/Annenberg on the book: "Corsi cites opinion columns and unsourced, anonymous blogs as if they were evidence of factual claims. Where he does cite legitimate news sources, he frequently distorts the facts. In some cases, Corsi simply ignores readily accessible information when it conflicts with his arguments. Among the errors we found..."

Payup Point 1a and 1b: Corsi claims that Obama "could claim to be a citizen of Kenya as well as of the United States." But the Kenyan Constitution specifically prohibits dual citizenship. He overlooks or ignores 1. Kenya does not allow dual citizenship; 2. it was only a colony when Obama was born there. He was long gone by the time it became independent.

Payup Point 2: Corsi falsely states that Obama, who has admitted to drug use as a teenager, "has yet to answer" questions about whether he stopped using drugs. In fact, Obama has answered that question twice in the media and at least once in his book, reviewed by Corsi(Washington Post (Jan. 3, 2007; State Journal-Register of Springfield, Ill, 2003; Obama ["Dreams," page 120]).

Payup Point 3: Corsi relies on claims from one of Obama's "closest" childhood friends to "prove" that Obama once was a practicing Muslim, without revealing that the witness later said he couldn't be certain about his claims and confessed to knowing Obama for only a few months.

Payup Point 4: Corsi claims that despite Obama's "rhetorically uplifting" speeches, the candidate has never detailed any specific plans. In fact, Obama's Web site is full of detailed policy proposals.

The link: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/corsis_dull_hatchet.html

Meanwhile, I do not appreciate lies being told in ANY direction. Politifact.com indicates that the book banning allegation is unfounded or cannot be found as verifiable. Reading between the lines, I hear a literal reading of "no book has ever been banned or title put up for banning" as a means of getting the hell off the electoral front burner. But it is just as likely that lack of vetting has created a Payup Point for Mrs. Palin.

Nobody will fess up to having heard such talk from Palin, opting to point to the lack of any official records; but it's also possible it's not true.

Stick to the facts, man. It'll win the thing in the long run.

More moo-lah:

McCain's campaign references Factcheck.org as characterizing "Obama's attacks on Palin as false".... but, actually, Factcheck was characterizing the elaborate and inveterately-circulating email smears as false!

They do not count on you or I going to the site they cite so as to ... erm.... CHECK THE FACTS.

www.factcheck.org for this lie.

DAMN! Lies, lies and sweet li'l ol' lies. McCain claims to have taken on Big Pharma. In one way he did. His work can be found documented on Politifact.com. However, their mainstream bias is SCREAMING, as well as their raw ignorance of tne inner straits of the Online Pharmacy (VIAGRA WARS) Wars, of which I was a foot soldier and unwitting player. Indeed, of the eleven states identified as having Activist Attorneys General, McCain's was a flagship-of-state. Rather than go after the true rogue internet pharmacy sites, McCain's activist AG and company busted the better actors on the web while refusing to parley and develop standards and guidelines with the ones who intended to provide access to pharma and needed partnership to get it done right. I was on the teams attempting to work with FDA, AMA, VIPPS and the AGs. Flat refusal to deal. Decisions had already been made. It was not about safety nor efficacy. It was about millions.

Behind the scenes, this is a tiny bit of what happened: originally, pharmacies and Big Pharma ignored internet portals as pipe dreams, unworkable; entrepreneurs dove in and developed code, confidentiality, logistics, commerce -- they proved it could be done and got immediately quite wealthy doing it. Along the way inventors got into the act and concerned themselves with developments that have helped in HIPAA-applications; concerned themselves with simple questions of shipping integrity - sourcing as well as product condition, and developed high tech packaging systems to address a variety of logistics and quality questions! As soon as it was seen that millions were being made, powers behind the scenes manipulated and/or otherwise activated AGs to make an example of online pharmacies. They wanted those portals back.

I actually came from the happy side of FDA work. I was naive, unhappily flummoxed at what I found!! I stumbled into a morass of FDA researchers publishing and making standards on their own product (a later White Paper - story on that - acknowledged "over 51%" as the number, and FDA determined to address it.... ). I stung some AG's offices by posing as a grad student doing research, and learned that AGs are to work by mandate only, and that there actually had not been a complaints-driven mandate received in the matter of Internet Pharmacy. They were amazingly frank about the politicized nature of this multi-state chase. I recruited the attorney who won against Big Tobacco first time around. Turned out he was working for Big Drug now. "That's a big dawg's got his teeth in yore laig" he said genially. And we agreed he would not mention me to much of anybody.

It's all true. Honestly.

SO. McCain might have struck some blows against Big Pharma, but on the other side of it, his state ensured that the Big Drug's sales portals were assiduously protected by applying archaic interstate mail laws, never enforced before internet pharmacy became worth millions. If they were, how would Gramps and Gran be able to follow the sun and still keep up with the meds from their homestate doctors? Like that....

Gosh there's a lot more to this story. Many more ins and outs. And some innocent people did time as an example, as well as some scoundrels getting nailed for money laundering. And I saw some true Bad Actors along the way.

McCain lies out of one half of his mouth on this one.

Hey Kristin: where do we stand on money? Got a tally? Sending to local campaign or national?

McCain:

Lie 1 - during acceptance speech: McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.

ACTUAL PLAN: ttp://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Lie 2: same - He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.

Lie 3: same - He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.

The full text: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080904_MCCAIN_SPEECH.html?scp=1&sq=transcript&st=cse

Kristin: send it to Nevada. To Washoe County. I'll ensure that my Washoe sister in law is there to make sure it's spent right. Hah. Now it's time to work on the lies being spun around this economic cataclysm we are caught in. I am concerned, Kristin, that nobody here cared to discuss the fact that our chosen candidate also had some bruises on his apples. I do think it's important for us to review the statements made by our own campaign with an open mind. In particular, I've enjoyed reading the fact checked smears on McCain touted as untrue, only to discover I knew another side... or to debunk some of the crap going on around Palin's name -- I wish people had some room to discuss our belief system infrastructures here, and how we prop them up. Not accusing OTHERS of it, but also reporting where we have discovered WE needed an adjustment. There's not enough of this up here - I may be wrong, but I feel that Obama's candidacy and the upward flow of accountability expectations would be made more robust if it were witnessed that grassroots people were practicing it and expecting it. These blogs are used by media and other Watchers as bellweathers. Not as anything influential, but we tell the time and temp of the self-selected subsets they need to tap into. We can set the homeostasis from here in our own small ways.

Just my $00.02. Send it on to Obama's campaign. That and ninety eight more cents will get you a stick of gum.

Saturday Update: McCain and Obama campaigns in fisticuffs, both telling lies to Hispanics.

Racial High Road Question to Apply to Our St. Obama: does this show respect for that sector of the electorate? CUT IT OUT. Play straight with us, ALL of us. It's what we want from you. Fight the falsehoods with hardh-hitting tactics that ALWAYS devolve to substantiable facts.

First, OBAMA: "new Spanish-language TV ad says 'John McCain and his Republican friends' have insulted Mexicans and practiced 'intolerance.' The ad shows conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh calling Mexicans 'stupid and unskilled,' and exhorting illegal immigrants to 'shut your mouth or get out.'" Also alleges that McCain is friends with Limbaugh.

FACT: Limbaugh despises and pillories McCain. Defends the spew quoted as humorous monologue on NAFTA. Limbaugh says a McCain nomination would "destroy the Republican party," and his vitriol is activated by the spectre of McCain's over-friendliness to Mexicans!

McCAIN: McCain's ad blames "Obama and his Congressional allies" for the failure of an immigration bill, but the truth is that it was a Republican-led filibuster that stymied it in the Senate and forced Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to pull the bill from consideration. On the final cloture vote on June 7, 2007, not a single Republican supported cutting off debate and allowing a vote on the bill. (McCain was absent, but his vote would not have changed the outcome.)

The link to the duelling ads in the Hispanic communities: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sparring_in_spanish.html

Kristin, forgive me, I know you wanted only McCain lies, but I'm unhappy when the people I must entrust my voice to engage in the same tactics as the ones I do oppose as in no way capable of representing my interests.

Fact Check shows a good, heavily hyperlinked analysis of a recent scare ad targeting seniors, on the part of "our" candidate. Among other concerning issues in this ad, there are internal dissonances in the content/foundational documents, as they are based on publications of Obama's own staff that state other than what is being touted in the ads:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/scaring_seniors.html

McCain/Palin Campaign Lies: Tax Plan Twisted Redux. The ad, which was released on Sept. 18 and which the campaign says will air nationally, claims that Obama will raise income taxes and will tax "life savings, electricity and home heating oil."

Does it count for a donation if the same lie surfaces in a new dress, later, again?

Lie 1: "The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity."

Truth: "He hasn't proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, BUT SO DOES McCAIN. [emphasis mine]"

Lie 2: "It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil."

Truth: "Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Lie 3: "The ad claims that Obama will tax 'life savings.'"

Truth: "In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged."

McCain may allege he is illiterate as to internet, computer useage etc., but he has certainly shown himself adequate in acquiring the expert staff to cover his illiteracy. We all know about the chaim mail smear campaigns running subrosa, flying under the cover of the authentic work product of courageously pissed off people such as Anne Kilkenny, who has been fact-checked and found to possibly be a little short of the mark in some areas, and substantiated in others. Never forget that certain key informants who at least partially-debunked her claims... may be covering their own asses from potential ramifications down the road. They have to. A preponderance of circumstantial evidence can buy you a trip to the pokey... so some of these must be viewed in this light.

So: this one sounds like campaign-sponsored mailism - http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_joe_biden_refusing_to_pay_a.html --- alleging Biden stiffed a consultant for campaign debt. Untrue.

The poor ignorant fool who poked his head up alleged the following: "1988 Presidential campaign financial disclosure engagement. I busted it for him and got everything right. He stiffed me for over $15,000 worth of work. He refused to pay once he dropped out of th e race.";

... and "I am on the Board of Directors of a company that owns a majority position in a private jet management company in Northern Virginia. They manage jets for businesses and rich folks. They also charter planes to the public. Joe Biden, in his latest unsuccessful run for President, chartered over $150,000 worth of air time. He PAID ZERO. He continues to refuse to pay stating his race is over and he is out of money. He never once complained about his flights. Joe Biden is a rich man. He could pay.

Joe Biden is a liar and a cheat. I know it first hand. Character is what life is all about. Joe Biden is a man of bad character and sets a bad example for America.

I feel compelled to share this dark side of a man who asks for your vote and trust. Best Regards, B ruce D. Riddle, CPA, CFP"

WHen contacted for a check on the facts, this fellow pled that allegations that Biden had outstanding debts for the use of the air charter and for Riddle's accounting services were "no longer true."

The falsity of the claims were checked as follows: Federal Election Commission's Web site; In its year-end 2007 report, Biden for President listed a debt of $150,464.85 to International Jet Management. Biden paid the bill in full, in three installments, before he was selected as Obama's running mate.

*******88

Obama Ads Viz McCain Debilities w/Technologies: (rant alert - I despise sentimenalizations of the "innocent victim" - this war hero crap is being used in subtle ways, just as subtly as race and gender are used)

As a person living in chronic, acute pain from a car wreck for which no tx was offered due to lack of insurance... it irritates me to be confronted with that patriotic swill about McCain unable to type on "regular" (so USE A FREAKIN' ERGONOMIC ONE!) kb due to "war injuries".............OY! He elects not to explore the many ADA technological access options that are well within his grasp financially. The cozy "Cindy is a whizz as she types my emails for me" picture his campaign paints is a picture of strategic helplessness. He has the option to not-deal, and so, he does not deal.

IMagine the powerful message to the handicapped (jump on that impolitic word, folks) were he to force himself to confront this and deal?

I also cannot raise my arms above shoulder heighth without spasm, SHOULD not engage in repetitive activities but MUST to pay the rent and live a full and contributing life, and, so, endure pain that never goes below the level of my awareness! Who brushes Mr. McCain's hair when Cindy is not there? And if he cannot tie shoes, does he wear velcro and slipons like millions of others in the US? Why should I feel sorry for him? This is irritating!

Even FactCheck buys this sentimental mooing around about his war injuries. He's an old guy in his seventies. He's gonna be stiff and painful. And millions of us out here are subject to the same conditions and possibly fewer choices as to how to deal with it or refuse to deal!

To his credit, he is indeed "learning to" use email and the internet. Perhaps Obama's campaign could stop presenting him as a Luddite (inaccurate, as this would be someone actually against technology), and simply present him as at least illiterate therein. And maybe McCain's campaign could stop offending the rest of us out here with that bleating "war hero" gobbitch.

Gawd.

http://news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/NEWS0107/80921022

In this article Sarah Palin directly blames Obama and Biden for the current mess on Wall Street while insisting that McCain was campaigning for something to be done about it.

ANYBODY got a verification on this?

The Lazyman's Way to Fundraising: www.factcheck.org ~ vetted by our own Civiletti as even-handed albeit mainstream in focus. Full analyses of these extracts easily accessible on the site.

SO, WHO WON? Based on THIS measure, I'd say Obama won, if there is any such thing as winning in these debates. He was caught in fewer falsehoods, flubs or shadyisms.

Gleaned from Debate Number One -

McCain Lie 1: "Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran."

McCain Lie 2: "Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan."

McCain Lie 3: "McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained."

McCain Lie 4: "McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply"

McCain Lie 5: "McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K."

McCain Lie 6: "McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well."

McCain Lie 7: "McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning."

Obama Lie 1: "Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance"

Obama Lie 2: "Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households. "

Obama Lie 3: "Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion."

AND ONE MORE ON McCAIN:

McCain: You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.

McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.

Adwatches: Kristin, I know you are only totting up cash to Obama for all of the McCain [and McCain-ally?] lies.

But I feel passionately that we need to watch for all manipulations from all sides, so I'm just gonna go ahead and post what I find.

It still seems preponderantly to be McCain and McCain support that are loading the media with debunkable detritus if nobody is loading the analysis to favor Obama's campaign as "more truthful" when it might not be. My natural suspicions about being manipulated by people whose job it IS to manipulate me....

SHADY AD NUMBER ONE: OBAMA http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_trade_trickery.html

Obama blames McCain for a closure of a plant and also alleges jobs were shipped directly overseas [MY pet peeve, that latter, and a great way to manipulate MY emotions, folks].

"The Obama-Biden campaign is running an ad that tells the story of the closing of a Corning plant in Pennsylvania and alleges Sen. John McCain was involved"

Technology killed the plant -- he also used this same plaint against Hillary before the nomination was completed, then the campaign transferred the charges over onto McCain. The plant was closed because it made cathode ray tubes, which are used in conventional televisions. But the cathode ray tube is a dying technology, and Corning no longer makes it. Conventional TVs are being displaced by new plasma and LCD televisions as the prices of these products decrease.

The machinery was sold and shipped to China [WHY are we not looking at whether China should be receiving technology since they clearly are operating in a death-toll lack of regulatory accountability at home and abroad??????], but the jobs were not. In fact, that Chinese concern went belly up and never did set up business. [Amazing! Let's keep score on closures that did NOT result in direct job migration -- my pet peeve.]

The American company is unhappy about being made grist for the political shuck and jive.

<hr/>

SHADY AD NUMBER TWO (McCAIN ALLIES) and ITS SHADY RESPONSE (OBAMA): Abortion Fears Manipulated by Both Campaigns

McCAIN ALLIES LIE 1: "An anti-abortion group is running an ad featuring a woman who says she survived a failed abortion and that "if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here." She's wrong. If she'd been born in Illinois, Illinois law would have protected her with or without the "born alive" legislation that Obama opposed and that this group supports."

OBAMA COUNTER ATTACK LIE - a repetition of earlier claims some of our posters continue to believe despite searchable evidence to the contrary; ALSO provably contrary to a fear-mongering leftie ad on the left gutter of this blog for months: "The Obama campaign countered with its own false ad. It accused McCain of wanting to ban abortions even in cases of rape or incest, when in fact McCain has long supported such exceptions. Obama's ad also attributes the "born alive" attack ad to McCain, when it actually was sponsored by an independent group."

<hr/>

McCAIN ALLY LIE 2: NRA CONSPIRACY THEORIES ON PARADE http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

"Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

... The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

The NRA announced it will spend $40 million during this year's elections, including $15 million to portray Sen. Barack Obama as a threat to gun rights. The flier being circulated has the look and feel of Obama campaign product and uses the campaign's logo. The broadsheet is a smart mixture of correct presentations and twists on truth.

<hr/>

McCAIN MACHINE: RICOCHET SLIMING AT ITS BEST http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/guilt_and_associations.html

The McCain-Palin campaign's new ad, "Chicago Machine," tries to tie Barack Obama to four Illinois powerbrokers. The campaign says it will air nationally. It's the highball Willy Horton thingie - alleging that Obama is, in effect, mobbed-up in Chi-Town, eh...

1. William Daley: related to the other famous Chicago Daleys, but he's never been accused of any wrongdoing.

2. Emil Jones: hasn't been charged with or even seriously accused of misdeeds despite the ad's claim of an "ethical cloud".

3. Tony Rezko: wire fraud, bribery, money laundering and attempted extortion, and Obama donated all of the disgraced businessman's previous campaign contributions to charity.

4. Rod Blagojevich: Obama has worked on ethics legislation triggered by some of the Blagojevich's questionable moves - the relationship does not extend past Blago being "Obama's governor".

The NRA is an adjunct of the Republican Party. Their support depends more on party than it does on 2nd Amendment issues.

To our fellow blogger (name escapes me, the exchanges do not) who insistenly cannot let go of disproved factoids about McCain and Palin: help add to believability here, why don't ya? Turns out Palin did not originate that incredibly abusive decision to charge women for their own rape kits. Yah, yah, factcheck.org.

Somewhat related, I notice that we no longer have that lying little piece of advert that claimed McCain/Palin are promulgating the end abortion for raped, incested, endangered women. In their hearts of black li'l hearts they may yearn for that day -- but it's not on the explicit agenda, so it's incumbent upon progressives to stop saying it if it ain't true.

"Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay for their own rape kits? A: Palin's police chief in Wasilla did that. Whether Palin supported this is not certain."

More than likely she supported it, or it would not have been continued, or initiated in the first place. But, fact remains: she did not originate this abuse.

Now: I'm gonna go take some valerian - this has made me ill. I prefer feckless imbalance in my thinking patterns and resent it mightily that anyone should force me to have to look at things I do not WANT to believe. Feh.

Since nobody here is interested in ANY dialog about OUR candidates ALSO shading truths, slipping the monkeys and sometimes lying or manipulating us, I am going to give that one a rest for a little bit tonight. I'm hungry, and I want to finish an Oliver Sacks book.

So here is a quick run-through for a few more dollars - only Palin for tonight.

Money, Money, Money: the One and Only VP Debate

Lie 1: Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year.

Facts: The Brookings Institute tracks the Iraq Troops in an index: http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf

Lie 2: Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year. Also, The vote took place on March 14 of this year, not last year as Palin said. It is also enshrined in an ad.

Facts: What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000.

Lie 3: Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.

Facts: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center on this - will increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

U.S. Budget Watch's on this - increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone.

Fiscal Voter Guide: http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/files/crfb/usbw082908promises.pdf

Lie 4: Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

Facts: Urban-Brookings again, finds that it is untrue that "millions" of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama's proposal. According to an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, several hundred thousand small business owners, at most, would have incomes high enough to be affected by the higher rates on income, capital gains and dividends that Obama proposes. That counts as "small business owners" even those who merely have some sideline income from such endeavors as freelance writing, speaking or running rental properties, and who get the bulk of their income from employment elsewhere.

Lie 5: Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes.

Facts: that number includes seven votes that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on corporations or affluent individuals; 23 votes that were against tax cuts; and 17 that came on just 7 different bills

Lie 6: Palin also claimed that Biden and Obama voted for "the largest tax increase in history."

Facts: Palin is referring here to the Democrats' 2008 budget proposal, which would indeed have resulted in about $217 billion in higher taxes over two years. That's a significant increase. But measured as a percentage of the nation's economic output, or gross domestic product, the yardstick that most economists prefer, the 2008 budget proposal would have been the third-largest since 1968, and it's not even in the top 10 since 1940.

Lie

Lie

Lie

Lie

Lie

Lie

Lie

Lie

Lie!!!!

Thank you for sending that check right away. They will need it.

Hullo Harry: I apologize for not responding yonks ago, I missed a question (probably rhetorical, but will assume respect from your quarter) to me:

"I assume that you meant "lie about Obama". I recommend that progressives give ten bucks for every Obama lie to a third party candidate."

NO, Harry, if you are reading, I'm insistently, natteringly, stultifyingly begging my fellows here to engage in a balancing modicum of discussion of the nature of politics, politicians and the content of OUR candidates too.

I really did mean that it matters to me to research the lies my chosen "ticket" delivers upon me, especially if they are cravenly manipulating me through my fears and anxieties or that of vulnerable others. I'm radicalized on this, and always have been. This is not new, and I've translated it into action that touched lives even if a touch is ephemeral and lasts but the moment of the touch and, if you are lucky, the summation of its reverberations. Many here on this blog, I am firmly convinced, live for this too. We know we cannot change the world, change anything. And so we must set our hearts and minds to make a difference.

Anyway (blather blather BLATHER): I meant it when I said I delved into an OBAMA lie and found a deeper vein of information I needed on McCain, serving the understanding of a greater good...

You underestimate me if you believe I am partisan. I'm actually only reactionary.

to the soundtrack from that Sally Bowles thingie: money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round oooooooooooooooooooooooh money makes the world....

A few other misleads of note:

Palin said, "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.

Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.

The McCain-Palin campaign is airing radio ads in four states claiming that the Obama-Biden ticket "oppose[s] clean coal." WRONG.

-by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller, Jessica Henig and Justin Bank

to the soundtrack from that Sally Bowles thingie: money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round oooooooooooooooooooooooh money makes the world....

A few other misleads of note:

Palin said, "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.

Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.

The McCain-Palin campaign is airing radio ads in four states claiming that the Obama-Biden ticket "oppose[s] clean coal." WRONG.

-by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller, Jessica Henig and Justin Bank