Lying about lying

September 12th, 2008

Paul Krugman has come completely unhinged.

He writes an entire column accusing the McCain campaign of “out-and-out” lying while depending on his own untruths and distortions to make his point:

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, discount viagra pharmacy which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, cialis usa when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

You might have missed it, but right in the middle of his accusation he ADMITS that she said “no” to the Bridge to Nowhere.

Has the McCain campaign implied that she was more against it than she was?

Yes, I’d say that would be a fair characterization.

But to call Palin’s claim an outright lie is a lie in and of itself.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

I think too much has been made of this, but I do believe Senator Obama meant to conjure up Sarah Palin with that reference: from their reaction, his audience certainly seemed to think that was what he was getting at.

Has the McCain campaign pushed the truth a couple of times?

I think so. (Especially with McCain’s claim that Governor Palin sold Alaska’s private jet for a profit.)

But the truth is, the ugliest lies in this campaign have come from supporters of Senator Obama including:

  1. Sarah Palin was her son’s grandmother, not his mother.
  2. Sarah Palin cheated on her husband.
  3. Sarah Palin said Iraq was a holy war.
  4. Sarah Palin’s son had to join the military or go to jail
  5. And Sara Palin has banned books, cut funding for special need’s kids, and wants Alaska to secede from the United States.

None of those things were true and I don’t hear Mr. Krugmen complaining about any of that.

Entry Filed under: Media

12 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  September 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    The lipstick thing has been said by both McCain and Obama in the past. It’s a sad political move by Republicans to bring focus away form what Obama said and instead look like the wounded innocents.

    As far as the “attacks” how about:
    1) Obama is a Muslim- obviously trying to use fear mongering to connect Obama to islamic terroristsi
    2) Obama faked his birth certificate and isn’t a citzen of the United States
    3) Obama wants to teach all the dirty secrets of sex ed to 5-year olds

    Both “sides” are guility. And, incidentally, only one of the attacks we listed came from a political candidate. The one about Obama being for sex education in school. Which was a McCain ad that was deliberately distorted against Obama.

    Also, your 5th point is technically correct about Palin not being a member of the Alaskan Indepdence Party. However, her husband was a member – just food for thought, there.

  • 2. elliot  |  September 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    You reinforce my point, De, “both sides are guilty.”

    Now, if only Mr. Krugman was interested in admitting as much.

  • 3. elliot  |  September 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    I should say again, I don’t like the distortions I see coming from the McCain camp. Especially because I don’t think that they are necessary. The truth is compelling enough.

  • 4. John  |  September 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    “She finally did decide to cancel the project” is not saying “no.” It was a politically-savvy REACTION to prevailing winds.

    To claim “I said ‘thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere'” is, alas, a lie. A clumsy one, at that.

  • 5. John  |  September 12th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    And, furthermore – – – “completely unhinged”?

    That characterization lacks nuance, wouldn’t you sy? It’s not like we’re talking about Sean Hannity here …

  • 6. elliot  |  September 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word “no” is, huh?

    I conceded that the McCain campaign wasn’t telling the whole story, but she DID cancel the project.

    Here are a few quotes from the Washington Post:

    Lois Epstein, director of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project , which opposed funding for the Gravina bridge, said while it’s true that Palin formally put an end to the project, “It wasn’t really a bold move when she did it.”

    “She put the final stake in the project,” Ashdown said. “But there was already tremendous momentum for the project to be scrapped. She gets credit for saying that they were not to go forward with the bridge, but it was at death’s door.”

    We rule Palin’s claim is Half True.

    Not quite the same as the out-and-out lie that Paul Krugman called it.

    In fact, I might say he’s doing the same thing she did…exaggerating the truth for effect.

    And I did think twice before saying Krugman was completely unhinged.

    I believe that title probably belongs to Andrew Sullivan at the moment. ;)

  • 7. Dave Casper  |  September 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    My two cents…

    1) So regardless of all that transpired with the entire Bridge to Nowhere thing, and in spite of the fact that it was, in actuality, a bridge to “somewhere” (seeing as it had an international airport and all), can you really fault someone for bringing tax dollars BACK to the state and taking advantage of them? I mean, it’s not like that money was printed by the Senate. It had to come from somewhere. So what it seems like, to me, at least, is that Mrs. Palin basically played the game well enough to ensure the money would return to her state, but that how it was spent wouldn’t be dictated by people thousands of miles away (or by a senator from her own state that wanted it spent specifically for one reason, or by two senators who just happen to be running for POTUS/VPOTUS who wouldn’t re-direct the money to areas impacted by Katrina).

    2) Look…whether or not Obama in any way intended the lipstick comment to be directed at Palin, it was so horribly said at the wrong time, wrong place that thousands of people realized how stupid it was to say. I know it’s a common phrase. You know it’s a common phrase. So does John McCain. So does Karl Rove. So does Larry Hagman. The point is that Obama made a huge mistake in saying it when he said it. I don’t know what his motivation was, but I think that we all have to admit that it certainly didn’t work in his favor.

    Years ago, I was hitting on an Asian girl attending a party at my house and asked her where she was from. When she said Korea, I told her that I used to watch a lot of MASH.

    Now, there’s nothing wrong with watching a lot of MASH. It was the highest rated show on television for a long time. But the truth is, saying it right then and there was exactly the wrong thing to say if I had any hope of achieving a very specific goal.

    Obama needs to just accept the fact that he screwed up. He’s a long way from winning in my book, but doing something like that would at least score him some poins.

  • 8. elliot  |  September 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    I think that’s the longest thing I’ve ever seen you write, Dave. ;)

  • 9. John  |  September 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am

    So regardless of all that transpired with the entire Bridge to Nowhere thing, and in spite of the fact that it was, in actuality, a bridge to “somewhere” (seeing as it had an international airport and all), can you really fault someone for bringing tax dollars BACK to the state and taking advantage of them? I mean, it’s not like that money was printed by the Senate. It had to come from somewhere. So what it seems like, to me, at least, is that Mrs. Palin basically played the game well enough to ensure the money would return to her state, but that how it was spent wouldn’t be dictated by people thousands of miles away (or by a senator from her own state that wanted it spent specifically for one reason, or by two senators who just happen to be running for POTUS/VPOTUS who wouldn’t re-direct the money to areas impacted by Katrina).

    What’s lost up there is the simple fact that if Palin played the game, then she did not say “No thank you” to the bridge. She is mischaracterizing herself.

    I.E.: A lie. A lie told frequently.

    A person finds a wallet full of money. Person says, “This is great! Money for me and my family! I’m taking it home.” People around that person point out that he/she is doing something wrong. He/she THEN – and ONLY then – gives the wallet back (we’ll disregard the fact that some money is KEPT). Should that person crow about that “accomplishment”?

    Is the Right becoming tolerant of Clintonian truth-bending?

    The McCain-Palin strategy now seems to be, as I’ve seen noted elsewhere, “Just say stuff.” The press catches you on some made-up stuff? Bah – – it’s only “them,” the elitist press. Lie about your opponent’s tax-cut plans; lie about “kindergarten sex ed,” etc. Say what you want; no one listens to reasoned discourse or rebuttal.

    “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” indeed …

  • 10. folkbum  |  September 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    in spite of the fact that it was, in actuality, a bridge to “somewhere” (seeing as it had an international airport and all)
    I’ve actually been to Ketchikan and seen the Gravina Island Airport. It makes Waukesha’s Crites Field look like Ohare. Our tour guide told us–it may well be apocryphal–that the “international” in its name comes from the fact that a Canadian plane made an emergency landing there once.

    Which is not to say that the airport is not important to the people of Ketchikan–it certainly seems to be–but they have remarkably good ferry service that does as fine a job at less cost than a $300m bridge.

    And I don’t know where on Gravina Island they would fit a parking lot.

  • 11. elliot  |  September 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Jay,

    Next time you go to Alaska, take me with you! I’ve never been and it’s on my list.

  • 12. Saturday Afternoon - Don&&hellip  |  September 13th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    […] Lying about lying – From Where I sit […]

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (69.89.31.216) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP () and so is spam.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta