Even before the campaign started, I knew that unity would be my number one issue. The divisive politics of the 2004 election was utterly disappointing and left us a bitter, cynical, and entrenched nation. “America is better than this”, I thought and hoped that 2008 would reveal at least one candidate who would put forth a solid and consistent effort to rise above the pettiness of partisan foodfights and despicable campaigns. Very early on, I was struck by Obama’s message of change and unity. His optimism and rhetoric were a breath of fresh air after the murk of 2004, and I have since witnessed him draw people together from many walks of life and create a coalition of over 2 million ordinary citizens. Obama has treated all of his opponents with dignity and has, more than any other candidate, though not perfectly, risen above the crass pettiness that has defined American politics.
Additionally, I was absolutely thrilled when John McCain had secured the Republican nomination. In the years since 2004, I thought that John McCain would be a brilliant choice for President. His noble military service and his reputation as a maverick with an unwavering sense of integrity convinced me that he was the best Republican for the job. When the general election began, I was convinced that the McCain/Obama race would be respectful and mostly devoid of the low road, divisive campaigning of the past and that either man would bring integrity back to the White House. It turns out I was wrong.
In contrast to his reputation, John McCain has run a dishonest, “more of the same” campaign against Barack Obama, especially in recent weeks. I feel betrayed by McCain’s negative, half-truth (or no truth) attacks on Obama, especially after setting such high hopes for his campaign. I’ve spent considerable time reviewing FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com’s investigation of political attacks and it has been quite revealing. As an illustration, I tallied the truthfulness of 1) all attacks reviewed by PolitiFact.com toward the opposing candidate (Obama to McCain and vice versa) as of 9/13/2008 and 2) only those of the candidates themselves, not the party or surrogates. The results were that of 42 attacks made by McCain on Obama, only 9 (21%) were better than half-truths (mostly true or true).
One of the most recent of these egregious false attacks is McCain’s accusation that Obama is being sexist by indirectly yet deliberately referring to Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, as a pig. This is nothing less than a lie. It is clear, if you listen to the clip, that Obama is referring to John McCain calling his own policies “change”. McCain’s policies, Obama contends, are no prettier by calling them “change” just as a pig is no prettier by wearing lipstick. But McCain has willfully distorted the truth and created a false controversy to distract voters from the real issues. McCain’s dishonestly quickly descends into hyprocrisy since he himself used the exact same phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan. And McCain, when confronted on his dishonest ad in a recent television appearance on The View, maintained that his position is the truth and denied any wrongdoing. These are simply lies. This is just one of many examples. McCain states that Obama supported “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.” A lie. McCain states that “Obama says Iran is a ‘tiny’ country, ‘doesn’t pose a serious threat.’” Another lie. McCain states that Obama will raise taxes. A half truth. Obama will actually lower taxes for 95% of the country!
In contrast, 18 of 30 attacks initiated by Obama toward McCain were more than half-truths. This is 60% truthfulness for Obama to McCain’s 21%. These “statistics” should obviously be taken with a grain of salt and be washed down with some serious research, but they do reflect the trends I have witnessed in this campaign. I certainly wish that Obama’s 60% was 100%, but I really think that these candidates are in different leagues. For instance, Obama’s most recent misleading attack states that McCain said “no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investment in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels.” Obama generalizes McCain’s energy record when it is in fact a rather mixed bag. But compared to McCain’s most recent attack - well, there’s really no comparison. Even Karl Rove thinks McCain has gone too far.
I encourage you to examine the what both candidates are saying and make an educated decision for yourself. When and why is he honest or untruthful? What does this tell me about the man? Does he have integrity? How will he lead the country? Who will bring us together to tackle the big issues that face us? Who appeals to the best in us as a people? For me, John McCain has been a disappointment. He may rather lose an election than lose a war, but he seems to rather win an election than keep his integrity. This is Bush/Rove politics all over again. Barack Obama, in most ways, has worked to move beyond paltry campaign tactics of the past. He is not perfect. He is not the savior of America. He is, after all, a politician. But he has thus far maintained his integrity, tackled divisive issues in inclusive ways, and brought out the best in us, in me, as Americans.
More on the issues next.
It is clearly no co-incidence that Obama made the “pig with lipstick” comment within days of Palin’s “lipstick” comment during the RNC. It was clearly intended to imply that palin was no pit-bull, she was a pig. When that comment is followed by an “old fish” comment, clearly aimed at McCain, there can be no doubt of Obama’s intention.
To claim that Obama did NOT intend the implication is even worse. In that case he he had no idea that his comments could be taken the wrong way. What might he say as president to some leader of a foreign country that would be words of war, without even realizing his words could be so biting? This man is dangerous and divisive.
Between the McCain “lipstick” ad, and Obama’s “McCain can’t use email” ad, they’ve both proven they can be petty and mean to each other. I’m disappointed in both of them as far as campaign ads are concerned.
It has gotten uglier, but I think it’s funny how any type of negative comment from one candidate about the other is cast as some type of violence. “McCain blasts Obama…Obama pummels McCain…” - it’s getting silly.
They need to be civil and stay out of the gutter (e.g. ad hominem attacks), but as for their records of words and deeds, all is fair game. If the media is making a bit too much of everything they say, at least it’s keeping them honest.
Let’s talk about that tax cut that 95% of are supposed to get from Obama. How is he going to do that and pay for all the programs he’s proposing? And the 5% who will pay more, who are they? How will their tax increase effect the average citizen, who either works for him or buys products from him? Increased taxation of the rich has a tremendous cost upon the poor. When the person or company that they work for is hit with the additional tax burden, do you think they may have to downsize their payroll to pay for it? Do you think they might have to charge more for the products or services that they sell? These things are a lot more complicated than they appear. Ronald Reagan proved that if you want to raise revenues, you need to decrease the tax rates. Increasing the rates only decreases the revenues.
Richard - Obama’s ‘McCain is computer illiterate’ ad was in bad taste and it shouldn’t have aired, but it was factual. McCain’s ads have been fabrications.
JB - LOL. So true. “Aaron slams Justin for being too funny”
DB - I guess we’ll have to respectfully disagree since what is plain to you is simply not plain to me. Also, you’re opinion of Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the rich doesn’t make McCain any more truthful, which was my point.
Hey Aaron,
Now that Palin has had her email hacked, it suddenly makes sense why public figures perhaps should not have their own personal email accounts. I think if I were president, or running for president, I would purposefully set up means to communicate without actually typing emails (or other electric means that can be hacked and made public). So, McCain not using email to me is a non-issue. I wouldn’t either.
Also on the McCain email ad…
Yes, it was “factual” to a point, but it was a case of using partial information to get people to make the wrong conclusion. Many political ads seem to start with a fact and then lead the viewer to a wrong conclusion. McCain can’t to a number of things that most people can do because his body was busted up rather badly on the inside while being tortued as a POW.
The Obama “email” ad and the McCain “lipstick” ad to me were equally despicable. I watched the Obama clip where he made the “lipstick” comment, and it would never have occured to me that Obama was directly insulting Palin.
It seems that as just as each side seems to grab the moral high ground in some way, they forfeit it immediately.
Simply saying that one ad has a “fact” and the other doesn’t misses the point. Effective propaganda starts with facts, but not all of them. Telling the story, but not all of it, is the way people are persuaded by ideologues. It’s a lot easier to deceive people by starting with facts.
So, that website with the “lie-o-matic” guages is helpful, not to mention fun, but it’s hardly the last word on anything.
And, why I’m not voting for Barack Obama.
Check out this article from the Washington Times. Sometimes I can’t tell if Obama is really such an inspired leader, or just a politician with a great marketing campaign. All I know that he can do really well is speak off a teleprompter a speech written by someone else. What else has he actually accomplished? I really want to know. I’d feel better about Obama if I knew about some of his genuine accomplishments. Where can I go to see this?
It does, however, seem that he’s got people working in the background to eliminate any dissent and questioning.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/the-new-digital-brownshirts/
OK, I’m done here for a while.
It’s a win-win situation. If Obama wins, America gets some change. If McCain wins, he’ll have to deal with the mess left by his predecessor, and take the heat for it.
Is this treating an opponent with dignity??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6No&feature=related
I aslo question the bias of politifact.com. Concerning the alleged Obama COLB, it appears that they have either jumped the gun in concluding it is authentic or they are unwilling to accept challenges to their conclusions. Compare their conclusions http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ with http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm The folks at FactCheck.org claim to have handled the paper copy and have photographs, but not high resolution scans of the document. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. It also appears that they did no tests or comparisons to verify its authenticity. I question the investigative ability of both of these groups to accurately fact check.
Why didn’t Obama choose Hillary for VP in the name of unity? She was still beating him even after he was the presumptive nominee. IMO, there is a question of Obama’s position of unity when he won’t reach out to unify the Democratic Party after a significant number of people did not vote for him.
Richard, I’d look at Wikipedia and THOMAS. You can find all sorts of affirming or incriminating information, depending on what you’re looking for. And you’re totally right, Politifact is far from the final word, though I find it quite helpful.
David, you are certainly right that Obama has done some slimy things on the campaign trail. I don’t deny it. He’s a politician after all. But most of what you presented have been nuanced phrases or gestures, where McCain has spent millions of dollars creating and airing deliberately false ads. To me, these are in completely different leagues. I understand your point but I have come to a different conclusion.
Grant, I can see your point. Personally, I think Obama stands a better chance of uniting the country without Senator Clinton, due to her high negatives among so many conservatives. I guess we’ll see.
Aaron,
Obama reminds me of an acquaintance of mine. He was teaching a class on Biblical financial responsibility. He had a tendency to pull scriptures out of their context and I was there to see that this didn’t happen. Well it did, and when someone in the class challenged him, he got very defensive. When it was all over, he concluded, “Are there any other PERTINANT comments on the subject,” with the emphasis clearly on the word PERTINANT. Again, he was challanged and responded, “All I said was, ‘Are there any OTHER pertinant comments on the subject.’” The emphasis this time was on the word OTHER. He had said the same thing both times, but the meaning was quite different. I have no doubt that this was intentional and deliberate; he could say something insulting and then later deny it, using his own words.
What Obama did in the “Lipstick on a pig” comment is no different. Everyone in the audience new it was a veiled smear of Palin, but it could also easily be denied. Obama may be many things, but he’s not that stupid. Are you really so naive that you can’t see that the “lipstick on a pig” and “an old fish” were carefully veiled references to his political opponents?
Hi J’s D!
Y’know, when I watched the Obama clip, I noticed the audience reaction and I do agree that it is quite possible that Obama was saying something without saying it, but I also think that it was a totally self defeating waste of time and money to make that “lipstick ad” (which has since been pulled and banned because CBS objected to the use of their footage in the ad). However, one can still see the original context CBS footage on Youtube.
I saw that lipstick and I wondered “Don’t those McCain people have anything better do do?”
Hi Aaron,
I looked at both those sources and I may be cynical but they just about prove my point for me. The THOMAS site lists all the bills that Obama has “sponsored”, which requires no work whatsoever beyond agreeing with the bill you’re sponsoring.
The Wikipedia article is full of “Obama favors”, “Obama spoke”, etc. This article is about Obama’s policies, not his accomplishments.
I don’t mean to slam Obama or try to convince anyone that he is a bad person, this is just interesting information that I heard on a podcast I listen to: Dan Carlin’s Common Sense (www.dancarlin.com if you’re curious.
Obama’s rhetoric has been really good. All about change. That’s something that I can agree with an value. However, when he chose Biden as his VP candidate, that flew in the face of his whole campaign of change. Biden is one of the oldest, most traditional senators alive.
Palin is more of a “All about change” kind of VP, though I doubt that McCain chose her for that reason as that is not what he preaches.
I’d love to believe that Obama is really the man to change government and American politics as we know it, but with his choice of VP, I see the vivid attractiveness of the change rhetoric fade until that’s all it is: rhetoric.
As a side note, I prefer to vote morally (I’m pro-life and must vote that way). How did you come to prefer voting politically/economically/etc. rather than morally?
Love to hear anyone’s thoughts.
I may drop this exchange. Don’t take it personally anyone, but where I’m at this site has slow response time. I just tried to enter the same message four times, got timed out, and then got a “duplicate comment” message. This is a fatiguing and frusterating site to use (not to mention interpredting the smudgy code words for every post). Anyway, I’ll go back to looking in now and again.
Look at both of the ads on this site http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/09/barack-obama-gi.html. Who’s vile and dishonest?
It’s interesting to me that there doesn’t seem to be even a slightest bit of curiosity as to what Obama’s relationship is to the corrupt former leadership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don’t consider myself an authority on the subject, but shouldn’t it be at least worth checking out for any of you?
The talk here seems to be all about surface things, like political ads, the most superficial, misleading, and downright dumb and wasteful way I could ever conceive of communicating with anyone.
It’s not just about what a candidate says, it’s about what people do and the causes they’ve fought for/against during their lives up to this point.
And, at my cynical worst, I’ve thought that it’s we Christians who made speech making the center of “church” for centuries, so is it any surprise that so many Christians (younger ones who haven’t yet realized that the difference between speech and actions can be huge) are mesmerized by the one who give the great speech, written by someone else, and read off a teleprompter?
Good point Richard. Don’t they both work for the Obama campaign now?
Yes, I believe they do. Just haven’t got it down to the point where I can rattle it all off.
No, they do not “work” for the Obama campaign. Franklin Raines took a few phone calls from the campaign on economic issues, and Jim Johnson is not exactly the crook some of these “isn’t he the guy who…” comments make him out to be. Plus, Johnson recused himself from his volunteer role with the Obama campaign when it became an issue.
If Obama is unfit to be President because he once had some of his people call some guy who has made some bad decisions but still probably knows a lot about the subject in question - then I would question who in the world is fit to be President. All this “key advisor” stuff is ridiculous - do we expect candidates to have never talked to anyone who has been involved in any kind of controversy?
It’s a little ironic that you say “Shouldn’t it be worth checking out?” while repeating inaccurate rumors and stuff you saw in McCain attack ads - which, as Aaron pointed out, are overwhelmingly deceptive. That, my friends, is fear-mongering.
Hi Justin,
Well, starting my “checking out” by looking at the very articles you referred me to…
It seems, at least from these articles, that Raines was indeed corrupt, but the link to Obama is thin, and Jim Johnson doesn’t seem have done any wrongdoing, but he definitely “works” for Obama. From the very article you linked:
“Johnson is a strong Obama supporter who has personally donated the maximum $4,600 to his 2008 Presidential campaign, as well as $1,000 to Obama’s Senate campaign in 2004.[8] In addition to personal donations, Johnson is a bundler for the Obama campaign, raising between $200,000 and $500,000.[9] He has also participated in Obama campaign efforts to recruit former Clinton supporters.”
Did you miss this? I sure wish I had a guy like that to “not work” for me!
So, my answer to my question is “yes”, it’s worth checking out, but Wikipedia in anything but a final authority on the subject. (It’s a good start though.)
It’s also pretty much an undisputed fact that Obama has received a lot of money from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. This is a matter of public record (the FEC). Money transfers of this magnitude tend to imply a relationship of some sorts. This stuff isn’t random. And, there’s a source that’s at least a bit more respectible than a campaign ad.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
So, it’s obvious that the leadership of at least Fannie Mae (Raines) and perhaps (don’t know yet) of Freddy Mac had corruption issues, and from the cash flow to Obama we can imply relationship. So, is it worth checking out? To me, the answer is yes.
Furthermore, the tone you took towards me in your last post was rather derisive and insulting. We were part of the same church for a couple years, remember? We got along well, remember? You seem like such a different person behind a keyboard. It tells me a something your mindset that you would react the way you did toward my simple question.
Depicting me as “repeating inaccurate rumors and stuff you saw in McCain attack ads” implies that I’m some sort of glued-to-the-TV Republican political junky with no critical thinking skills, and I think you know better.
I didn’t “repeat” anything, but rather posed a question based on all the data input I’ve received from many sources over the entire election season; data made more interesting due to the current financial meltdown.
It also implies that you’re my roommate and saw me watching McCain attack ads. You’re not, and you really don’t know where I get information, so please refrain from writing as if you do.
Attack ads tend to run in battleground states, and our state is not one of those. And, I don’t watch much TV except for CSPAN lately to see the debates and watch the financial crisis unfold. I’ve seen a few ads on CSPAN, but that’s about it. I’ve also watched a few on YouTube and even a few on McCain’s campaign site, and Obama’s site, but only so I could evaluate them and find out what all the buzz is about.
I’ve already stated in this thread my distaste for political ads and one by McCain that I thought was “despicable”. I don’t trust any of them as far as facts are concerned, and I trust that nobody who had followed this thread up to this point, and was still thinking calmly, would accuse me of “repeating inaccurate rumors and stuff you saw in McCain attack ads”.
When you react like this to questions posed respectfully from someone you know personally, you come across as angry, defensive, and not very Christlike.
Maybe it would be good to take a break from politics for a while. This stuff can get your head into a bad place and cause a loss of one’s eternal perspective. I’ve caught it happening to me and I don’t like it.
This stuff just isn’t worth getting angry about. It’s not like we’re discussing something really important, like the right way to worship on Sunday morning.
Hi Richard,
A few comments up, you said:
I said:
No derision was intended. I guess I don’t know whether you heard a rumor from CNN, Sean Hannity, an attack ad (I’ve seen plenty myself, mostly on YouTube), or someone at work, but the point is, this stuff is easy to check out, and when you and “J’s D” start building off of each other as if this stuff is credible, I’m quick to call you on it.
I’m not angry, but when you accuse the authors here of focusing on irrelevant surface issues, we clearly have a difference of opinion that I feel it’s OK to discuss with some passion. Glad you’re here.
Don’t take it too hard Richard, I’m his Father! And I live in Idaho, which is by no means a battleground state. If it wasn’t from looking into things I’ve read here, I probably would not have seen even one political add from either party! I’ve even had posts deleted on this web-site for using an expression describing Obama that was used in the popular press and featured in a popular parody. It all seems to me to be a blind allegience to a candidate.
And in case you were wondering, I am a Rush Limbaugh fan, although I rarely listen. I’ve only heard Sean Hannity’s show once or twice in the last year and I’ve listened to Glenn Beck a few times and seen his show 3 or 4 times. I only listen to the radio when I’m in my car which is not all that much.
And Justin, I love you.
All this talk about truthfulness. I went back to politifact.com and tallied the truth-o-meter for McCain and Obama comments made since the beginning of this year. I weighted them 0 for a false, 1/4 for a barely true, 1/2 for a 1/2 truth, 3/4 for a mostly true and 1 for a true. weighted, McCain was 49.6% true and Obama was 63.8% (I’ll be glad to e-mail the spreadsheet to any who will send me their e-mail address to dbaederatgmaildotcom). I then subtracted this from 1 to get the deception factor and multiplied the result times the ratio of the candidates spending over combined candidate spending for the last month to get an idea of how many people were being lied to. Comparing these two numbers, Obama is twice the liar that McCain is (62.6 vs. 37.3). So who’s the bigger liar?
Let’s be frank about politifact.com Many of the statements have nothing to do with the election, such as cCain’s comment about the Jewish holiday, Purim (being “their version of halloween”). This was rated false, but in defense of McCain, they do wear costumes and eat sweets. It should have been given at least a barely true (and barely relevant). See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/407/ In addition, some truth claims were downgraded because they were conservatively stated or understated such as this one: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/747/
[...] this series. I have several half-finished drafts intended to be as detailed as my articles on unity and the environment. But the election is one week away and I simply don’t have the energy to [...]
[...] is part of a series: Unity Environment The Rest « Previous | Next » SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Why I Am [...]