PALIN DOES IT AGAIN: As a politician, Sarah Palin is profoundly talented, disturbingly so. But uh-oh–she clearly enjoys telling lies! Last night, in her speech, she did it again! Why is she able to do this:
PALIN (9/3/08): We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere.
(APPLAUSE)
If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves.
(APPLAUSE)
That entire passage is a bald-faced deception–a deception which makes Palin a hero. Why did people applaud those statements? Let’s start with a guess: They didn’t know Palin was lying. (In her next breath, she repeated her grossly misleading tale about that jump in state revenues. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/2/08.)
Palin wasn’t “slightly exaggerating,” as the hapless New York Times said. She wasn’t “for the bridge before she was against it,” as liberals now enjoy saying. (More on this weak formulation below, in our major post.) In reality, Palin “told Congress” nothing at all about that ballyhooed Bridge to Nowhere. Her statement is deliberately, laughably false. If we’re speaking English today, there’s word for her conduct: She’s lying.
Bob Somerby ladies and gentlemen, the original is still the greatest.
- DCblogger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
I agree
but I don't think you can fight a right wing populist even by proving they're lying.
How you do, I don't know, but the Ds better figure it out, and this muffed and clumsy attack on what turned out to be her incredibly telegenic family isn't going to hurt.
It's as if the Obama campaign is approaching this thing as an intra-party battle in Chicago, where everything is in a closed system and all the moves are known. It isn't that way.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
They're Also Focused on the Wrong Lies
I've seen the Obama campaign push back against Palin's claims that he didn't author any legislation (the list sounds pretty lame, btw, so maybe McCain's camp wanted that). I've seen Harry Reid push back on the idea that he isn't a fighter and won't stand up to John McCain.
What I haven't really seen and maybe I've just missed it is an all out assault on the lies she told that really matter like this one. Or about how John McCain isn't part of the D.C. Village. Or basically anything she said on her and McCain's behalf. The entire speech was basically a lie whenever she spoke about anything having to do with herself or McCain, albeit delivered frighteningly effectively.
Why is Harry fucking Reid even mentioning the word 'fight',
since he sorta lost his memory about boxing, fighting and anything else requiring defense since becoming Senate Majority Leader?
*He* couldn't stand up to McCain and the GOP crew for damn near every significant piece of legislation we needed, and *Obama* didn't rise up and be a, yes, maverick, when it could have cemented a reputation for getting things done.
They're still playing with their weaknesses.
The lies are right there, *right there*, and they ignore them.
Reid's Spokesman Called Palin "Shrill"
Or actually "shrill and sarcastic" (am I the only one who thinks the latter is a compliment?). Which then apparently kicked off a discussion between Campbell Brown and Paul Begala on whether "shrill" was sexist since it's a word often used to dismiss women with Brown saying it was and Begala (and Brazile) saying it wasn't. The Dems have created this trap and now they keep stepping in it. Nicely done, boys. (I'd link but a lot of the discussion about Brown/Begala were on right-wing sites).
BTW, I thought it was interesting that many used "sarcastic" as an insult for Palin last night. I doubt they'd do the same for a man. I remember Drew Carey of all people making the point that more funny women aren't on television because men in Hollywood were scared of them because comedy is a form of aggression. And, of course, sarcasm is a particularly aggressive form of humor. It's also a very effective political tool and I thought Palin put it to good use last night.
All of which is a shame because Palin as many have noted is fucking terrifying.
they're still not getting it at all-
it's really disgusting.
I Called This One The Other Night
Why she keeps walking out the "Bridge to Nowhere" as one of her examples of not accepting pork is beyond me. As Somerby said, this isn't just some exaggeration or half-truth; it's a lie, and one Democrats would have no problem in revealing if they wanted to. It wouldn't be a huge hit, against her, but it would stop her from telling this blatantly false tale she tells.
Let's be real, here. Alaska eats up all of the pork it can get its hands on and them some. It's a state where they practically pay you for just living there. Alaska is not just seperated from the Lower 49, physically, but the government, up there, is a whole other country.
BTW, to put it out there, I have nothing wrong with pork in this broken system as long as everyone know who's asking for what. My local airport runway expansion was a recent beneficiary of some pork.
I do wish, though, for a system where Senators don't have to slip in pork for infrastructure, a system where we actually adequately fund physical and social infrastructure, up front. The only reason we need pork is because we spend our money in all of the wrong places.