Friday, September 12, 2008

Continuing Q & A

No energy for a detailed post today (after watching four hours of 9/11 replay stuff Thursday night), so I'll save most of a future post for later. But the lovely and annoying Shaw (winner of SPD's Most Moderated award) dropped a comment yesterday, and I figured I'd just respond and keep the thread going.

A little background. I called her out after she claimed Sara Palin was a liar concerning the Bridge to Nowhere. Let's just go from there:
This is in answer to you question to me downthread about giving you evidence of Palin's lie about the Bridge to Nowhere. I'm posting here [the 9/11 post] because I thought it would get buried downthread:

It is now incontrovertible fact that Gov. Palin was FOR the Bridge to Nowhere when it was first proposed and reversed field once it became a symbol of legislative abuse.

Even then, the Palin helped cycle the $223 million in federal pork to other state needs.

If she had been adamantly opposed from the beginning (she was not) that would be proof of her bona fides as a money saving reformer.

It is not credible for her to call herself a reformer and at the same time to have been for an ear-mark, and then reverse herself when it was politically expedient.

John Kerry was for the Iraq war before he was against it.

And you know how the conservatives excoriated him for the wussy position. Remember?

Palin and McCain lied about the Bridge to Nowhere.

And no amount of lipstick will make that pretty.


Okay. First, every fact you've given is correct. However, you've missed the opportunity to give us a lie. I can see an accusation of 'flip-flop' (Kerry-style) or maybe the hypocrisy shot, which falls flat because there's no inconsistency with personal behavior. But a lie? I officially declare BS on that.

The fact is that on both sides, the records speak for themselves. And I always assume that both parties will fudge, nudge, adjust and bullshit the facts to fit their agenda, massage their worldview, and further their campaign. And it's our job to try to sort through that and be intellectually honest about it. It's more challenging, though, when your drink of the day is Kool-Aid. Whether this applies to you or not is your decision to make, although if some fat bastard in a red pitcher costume comes blasting through your wall yelling "Ooooh Yeaaahhh!", that's a good indicator.

When you give me a quote where Sara Palin said she never supported the bridge, then I'll call BS on her. Until then, I'll consider myself right. I like to do that. Makes me feel all warm and funny and plaid.

17 comments:

Shaw Hussein Kenawe said...

Patrick, you’re doing the fudging and nudging here.

McCain put Palin forward as his VP choice for, among her other attributes,her “reformer/outsider” image,her ability to stand up to Washington insiders and Washington’s love of earmarks—which McCain has come out very strongly against. In fact, he was adamantly against the BtN.

Now you want me to find some quote of Palin’s where she actually says “I was never for the BtN.” Of course, it doesn’t exist. But this does: “I said thanks, but no thanks.”

Now by anyone’s reasonable understanding of that phrase, that means NO. Does "no" mean “never?” I dunno. You tell me. If someone asks a guy “Did you ever beat your wife?” And that guy says “No.” Can we assume he also means “never?” You tell me.

Your parsing of words here is Clintonian.

If you can’t accept that what Palin said is a lie, at the very least it was deceptive and misleading.

She didn’t tell the whole truth. And generally people don't tell the whole truth because they need to hide some of it--some of it that reflects badly on them.

The whole truth is that she thought the BtN was a very good thing for Alaska, ONLY when it became a political hot potato, did she decide to abandon the bridge—but not the money.

She kept the pork, lipstick and all, and applied it to other projects in Alaska.

Deceive and mislead are defined this way:

DECEIVE: to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness; implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance.

MISLEAD: TO give false or confusing information to. To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving. See synonyms at deceive.

It seems that you’re okay with this initial debut of Sarah Palin—deceiving/misleading the public on her role in the BtN--so long as she didn’t actually say the word “never.”

Bill Clinton grins in your general direction.

Patrick M said...

If you can’t accept that what Palin said is a lie, at the very least it was deceptive and misleading.

At least you're getting the point. I'm waiting for the clear answer to that question from Sarah.

Consider this: If I said "Obama has flirted with Islam," that would technically be true. But most of that occurred when he was a child. Therefore, I was technically not lying. Whereas if I said "Obama is a Muslim," I would be wrong, and if I was pushing the point despite the evidence to the contrary, it would be a lie. And if I defended it by trying to parse the definition of "is", then my name would be Bill.

If someone asks a guy “Did you ever beat your wife?” And that guy says “No.” Can we assume he also means “never?” You tell me. [emphasis added]

Yes. Wow, I'm good at parsing.

Your parsing of words here is Clintonian.

I learned from the best. Because today, politics is that game I like to refer to as "Parse the Word." :)

Toad734 said...

"...I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves."

Patrick M said...

Toad: Yeah, that's the quote that will give her trouble. She now has to explain why she said "yes" before she said "Thanks, but no thanks."

shaw kenawe said...

Consider this: If I said "Obama has flirted with Islam," that would technically be true. But most of that occurred when he was a child.

I don't think children "flirt" with religion. Every child I know who accepts religion, accepts it because his parents thrust it upon him without the child's having any say in the matter.

What he did or didn't do as a child does not count.

It's what you do as a fully mature, reasoning adult that matters. And Barack embraced Christianity as an adult.

My parents MADE me attend CCD as a child. I had NO choice. As an adult, I rejected it.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: If I wasn't clear enough there, thanks for stating the obvious.

But the point is that my first statement could be considered true, although the reality is quite different. Not that you couldn't stop yourself from relentlessly defending your main man from no attack whatsoever.

The Sarah Palin secessionist rumor is the same way. From what I have learned so far, her husband did belong to the Alaskan Independence party, and she definitely attended a convention once as the mayor of the town where the convention was held. But to call her a secessionist, which exploded all over liberal blogs (searched 'sarah palin secession' and, damn), is definitely not true. Here's the link to factcheck.org if you want to check my info.

shaw kenawe said...

From what I have learned so far, her husband did belong to the Alaskan Independence party, and she definitely attended a convention once as the mayor of the town where the convention was held.--Patrick

The Right smeared and smears Obama by association--Rev. Wright, Ayers, to give two examples.

Now when Palin is called on for her associations with a secessionist group, the right calls foul. Again. Hypocrisy. The Right doesnt want to be judged by the same rules it applies to the Left.

And I'd be careful about using factcheck.org, since that group is furious with the McCain campaign for its sleazy use of them to lie about Obama.

Over the past week, McCain has shown that he would rather be president than honorabl.

He's George W. Bush, except for his not shirking his military duty.

Patrick M said...

The Right smeared and smears Obama by association--Rev. Wright, Ayers, to give two examples.

Now when Palin is called on for her associations with a secessionist group...,


Except that it wasn't an association. The lib bloggers said she was a member of the party, no just "associated" with it.

Also, Ayers is a fucking terrorist. There's a difference between hanging around a radical right political group and furthering your political career by hanging around a terrorist.

As for factcheck.org, it appears they're evenhanded in handling info. I found info to debunk as much Obama smear as I did McCain/Palin smear. I didn't see anything on Biden, probably because just playing audio clips of the human gaffe machine and laughing is enough.

shaw kenawe said...

Now when Palin is called on for her associations with a secessionist group...,--ShawK

Except that it wasn't an association. The lib bloggers said she was a member of the party, no just "associated" with it.--Patrick

I'd say it was an extremely close association since the man she sleeps with is a member of the secessionist group.

Imagine if Joe Biden's wife were a member of some radical fringe group that wanted to secede from America and had it's members say "Delaware First!"

Y'all'd be calling for her head on a pike.

The sooner you and your rightwing pals realize you've got a know-nothing dud running with McCain and possibly in a position to be he leader of the free world, the better.

Her foreign policy experience? She can see Russia from somewhere in Alaska.

Really. That's it. And you people aren't embarrassed?


I can see the moon from my window.

I guess that makes me a friggin' astronaut.

Patrick M said...

I can see the moon from my window.

I guess that makes me a friggin' astronaut.


Or maybe just a moonbat. Snoogins.

It's a sign of fanaticism when you have to keep arguing a point even if the opposing person is agreeing with you.

I think you're arguing so hard because you saw how the dynamic of the race changed after Sarah showed up. More on that Monday.

Bullfrog said...

Why is it shocking and downright appalling when a Conservative running for office plays politics, but when Obama does it (like after the GOP Convention he cried about McCain taking about him too much, then analysis of each speech showed Obama talked about McCain much more), it's just because he is a skilled politician? Love or hate Obama, he is a good politician. Since this is part of it, why can't we just call it a "wash" when "politics" happens?

To Patrick's point, Sarah Palin's appeal obviously goes beyond politics, because in spite of Obama being a heck of alot better at the "game", having alot more money, and the best political advantage since who knows when (unenthusiastic GOP base, economy, Bush's approval rating...) he is still struggling to pull ahead of McCain.

This has you all on the left not a little perturbed obviously, and who can blame you? It SUCKS to lose.

Bullfrog said...

Shaw: Hilarious that Obama supporters are all over the Palin interviews of late when what YOU saw was about half of what was actually said because the interviews were edited, not for brevity, but to paint the picture of Palin that the Obama-loving MSM wanted you to see.

That is despicable behavior for them, and a little foolish of you for taking it so seriously. Fortunately, there is an easy remedy: Google Palin/Gibson interview full transcript, and maybe she will seem less like a gun-toting rube from Podunk.

Toad734 said...

But then went ahead and kept the money. Even though the bridge wasn't built, we the tax payers still paid for it and Palin kept the money...but with no bridge.

It was a flat out lie.

Toad734 said...

I mean, I know you Republicans have become fond of liars, you re-elected one in 2004. So if that's what you are into, more of the same, then McCain Palin is the ticket.

Patrick M said...

Bullfrog: Even a "gun-toting rube from Podunk" would be an improvement to most politicians today.

Toad: Do you own a dictionary?

If not, there's a few sites where you can look up the definition of "lie," because you certainly can't tell a lie from political bullshit. And the bridge question does fall under the latter. I'm waiting for Sarah to answer the question, "Why did you support the bridge, then abandon it when it became politically distasteful, but keep the money?" I suspect I'll be satisfied with the answer. If not, then she'll have to lie to explain it.

Toad734 said...

Ok, so it just wasn't the whole truth...not even 60% of the truth.

Patrick M said...

But more than at least 10%. Are you down to trying to quantify shit now?

Do you really expect total honesty from any politician? Or did you completely forget the Clinton years? That makes any issues with Bush look totally honest in comparison.