home

Media Focuses on Lies and Distortions in McCain Ads

Even David Gergen on CNN tonight said John McCain's campaign ads are false. He says the media is beginning to pushback against Palin and McCain and it may spread to the public.

CNN also had a long review of McCain's ads with reporter Randi Kaye and Factcheck.org. The upshot:

  • Sex education ad: false Obama was trying to get kids to learn about recognizing improper touching.
  • The Bridge to Nowhere: Palin never told Congress "no thanks", Congress had already killed it.
  • Earmarks: McCain lied on The View today and said Palin didn't ask for earmarks while Governor. This year alone she asked for 197 million. She vetoed some earmarks but also asked for others.
  • Palin claims Alaska produces 20% of the energy produced in US. It's 3.5%. It matters because they are using this in a claim that Palin is some kind of energy expert.

More...

  • International credentials: The claims about her Alaska National Guard experience and international travel. The Alaska National Guard says it is 100% sure Palin never went past the checkpoint into Iraq, and that Ireland merely was a refueling stop.

The lies will get past their base who will vote for them anyway, but I'd bet everyone else soon will start rolling their eyes when she says anything. She's going to become the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. And the only takeaway from McCain's ads will be the desperation.

Tomorrow CNN will take a look at Obama's ads.

< Monday Night Open Thread | McCain Ad Lies About Immigration >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You know (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    The thing about never going into Iraq really bugs me in light of the wall-to-wall treatment given to Hillary's Bosnia exaggeration.  See, I'm still not over it.

    Heck, maybe McCain wasn't really (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:59:17 PM EST
    a POW.  Oh, wait, new 527 ad says he exhibited a very bad temper as a POW.

    Meanwhile, today Sen. Biden sd. he was so upset about the 527s against McCain in 2000 that he called McCain sd. tell me what to do; I'll go anywhere for you.  

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:06:13 PM EST
    Earlier in the primary I read an article about someone in South Carolina smearing McCain with stories about his dishonorable conduct as a POW, etc.  Even though I have no love for Sen. McCain I got really outraged, that sort of thing is just so wrong.

    Then I looked a little more closely and found out that it was all about some crank who didn't even have enough money to mail out the alleged smear flyer.  The entire story was put out by the McCain campaign, calling attention to some swiftboater-wannabe no one would ever have heard of, in a blatant play for sympathy.  That was kind of a "wow" moment for me.

    Parent

    If Gov. Palin counts Ireland, (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    I get to count Damascus.  

    Parent
    I expect to hear about how she visited Chinatown (none / 0) (#20)
    by Knocienz on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:56:48 AM EST
    Not the one in San Francisco though! That would lose her points with the base.

    Parent
    hmm (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:08:50 PM EST
    The thing that gets me about McCain is that I defended him in 2000.  Right-wing nuts were making up all this stuff online and spreading it like maniacs.  It was like fighting fires.  They hated him so much.

    And what did McCain learn? Be like them.  Not the lesson I would have hoped for.

    If Palin is an energy expert (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by onemanrules on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:28:11 AM EST
    that must make Obama one also since before she became the vp nominee she backed Obama's energy plan.

    historically, these kinds of (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:31:09 AM EST
    overt lies and distortions are very effective.  they put your opponent on the defensive, and they are what sticks in the average voter's mind, not the corrections.

    the key is to make it so outrageous that people are practically forced to notice it (kind of like being compelled to look at a train wreck, even though you know you shouldn't), anything your opponent does in response is then seen as either sour grapes, or just gets lost in the din over the original claim. even better, the media repeat the lies & distortions, over and over, as they "analyze" them, resulting in them becoming deeply embedded in the public consciousness.

    it's an incredibly effective strategy; it worked for bush twice.

    I understand that CNN (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:07:36 AM EST
    will be doing a segment tonight (Tuesday) on the lies in Obama's ads. I wish they would NOT do these types of reports separately. If a viewer only wathces one night it will give the impression that CNN is favoring one candidate over the other. It would be better ifthey aired these together so the viewer could compare the differences between the two.

    No wonder McCain (4.00 / 3) (#3)
    by byteb on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:02:18 PM EST
    called Palin his 'soul mate'. They both lie with ease.

    Los Angeles Times (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:06:38 PM EST
    on lying during campaigns.  It works.

    Lying

    About the 20% energy thing... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST
    Far be it from me to question the judgment of the PoliSci major FactCheck assigned to question that statistic, but he's all wet.

    What we get from his analysis is a run around about how the oil Alaska produces is not 20% of the total energy the US either produces or consumes.  

    Of course, that's a strawman.  Palin specifically introduces the statistic in the context of national security and energy independence.  In that context "energy supply" is "generally defined" as oil and natural gas.  After all, what other major source of energy does the US have to regain independence on, hydroelectric power we import from Canada?  What's the national security concern over our relations with Canada?

    More to the point, Palin is quoting a statistic cited by the Resource Development Council of Alaska, an organization that might know a bit more about it than FackctCheck's PoliSci major.

    Resource Development Council of Alaska

    That statistic isn't dated, but there were certainly years in the recent past when Alaska produced "nearly 20%" of the nation's oil and gas.  So if someone wants to quarrel with that number, take it up with those guys, not Palin.

    And a pedantic, out of context comparison to all the energy the US produces or consumes, solar, wind, hydro, coal, and nuclear included to "debunk" the statistic isn't going to impress those of us who've worked in the energy industry.  Just makes them look foolish.

    YMMV

    the factcheck reporter was a (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:43:19 PM EST
    she and her source I beleive was a federal agency.

    Parent
    ANd the factchecker doesn't seem (none / 0) (#10)
    by tree on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:00:08 AM EST
    to know whether Palin is referring to energy "produced" in the US or "consumed" in the US. It seems from the Palin quote that she is referring to that which is produced in the US and is referring to oil and gas, which is a subset of energy, not energy itself. The "nearly 20%" figure is correct as it applies to oil and natural gas produced in the US, but not for energy overall.  

    Parent
    Well gosh (none / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:00:33 AM EST
    I earned plenty of dough working for Big Oil myself, but I don't think that entitles me to pretend that oil and gas are the only domestic sources of energy.

    In addition, like the infamous eBay story, this seems to be yet another case where Palin might be endeavoring to choose her words carefully, but McCain just goes around blustering random crap like "Palin is in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply."  I mean, if you don't want to get factchecked, say factual things.

    Parent

    Yes, only oil and gas constitute the energy supply (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ramo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:10:01 AM EST
    Everything else doesn't.  To be part of the nation's "energy supply," you have to supply energy.  Which coal or nuclear or hydro or geothermal certainly don't do.  Actually, they supply unicorns.  One learns these mysteries in the industry.

    Parent
    Coal Bed Methane (none / 0) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:17:25 AM EST
    Did you know its the leading source of Rainbows nationwide?

    Parent
    MMDV (none / 0) (#13)
    by wasabi on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:10:03 AM EST
    Sorry you are not impressed by the PoliSci major.  My husband works for the oil industry and frankly, I know that my house isn't heated or cooled by OIL or GAS, and I know darn well it takes ENERGY to do just that.  

    Saying that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy" is just factually wrong.

    As far as what "major source of energy does the US have to regain independence on", I guess,  coming from the oil and gas industry, you are compelled to ignore the rest of the energy sources that are used in the US. Fortunately, most of the US does not work in your "energy industry" and when given the facts, can clearly understand Ms. Palin is less than truthful in her statement.

    Parent

    Strick (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:39:39 AM EST
    has 20 comments here today attacking Obama and supporting McCain/Palin. The limit is 4. He's suspended.

    Parent
    he is (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:19:34 AM EST
    pretty much in every thread Jeralyn along with a few others you have banned for the day as well.

    Parent
    FactCheck.org doesn't know what (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:10:27 AM EST
    it's doing. There appears to be a glaring error that can be easily determined from clicking on the EIA link provided in the FactCheck article (see below).

    FactCheck doesn't include 91,824 million barrels of offshore oil production for Alaska, and thus miscalculates and understates the precentage of US oil production from Alaska.

    Problems like this occur fairly often when people who don't understand the particular subject or industry are running around doing analyses like this. The same thing has occurred in the reporting of US oil and gas amounts in recent months.

    Now, zillions of media outlets and blogs are passing along this misinformation.

    Also, I agree with Strick's points above.

    "Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels." Cite: Factcheck.org

    Well (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:17:01 AM EST
    there is probably a reason why the Republicans aren't interested in pointing out Palin's "expertise" in oil specifically, as it would be a little too Bush/Cheney.  But yeah, you could use that number to argue that Palin is an oil expert, just as Barbara Boxer is presumably an authority on almonds.

    Parent
    Following up on my above post, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:03:05 AM EST
    I've been trying to figure out if the Alaska offshore number was already included in the Alaska number. Initially, I thought it wasn't, but now I'm not sure, which raises the possibility that maybe FactCheck is the smart one, and I'm the dumb one.

    Here's some other quotes from the Alaska Resource Development Council (which apparently was what the McCain campaign refered FactCheck to):

    "Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production."

    "With the discovery of Prudhoe Bay and the construction of the trans-Alaska Pipeline, the oil and gas industry has become Alaska's economic lifeline and a major secure source of domestic energy. North Slope oil fields account for an average of 20 percent of the nation's domestic production."

    It looks like both of these blurbs were determined over a longer period of time, as opposed to a recent year or time period.

    Mail David Letterman (none / 0) (#24)
    by timber on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 04:06:17 AM EST
    10 Lies of Sarah Palin

    10 Lies of John McCain

    That will be a good Top 10list for David Letterman

    ATTENTION PLEASE (none / 0) (#26)
    by Prof G on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    Congress had not killed the "Bridge to Nowhere", it had only removed the earmark.  Palin herself removed the bridge project in its existing form from the state capital budget in Sept. 2007.  I have written a brief article that sorts out this issue:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-080910bridge_briefs,0,7294354.story

    Palin did exaggerate the extent to which Congress was pushing the project, but this strikes me as mere populist hyperbole.  The key point is that she overruled the state's Republican establishment when she stopped the project.

    Interesting piece on MSM and McCain lying (none / 0) (#27)
    by rennies on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    by David Harsani at RCP.
    http://tinyurl.com/5vvwzs

    (Where do I find out how to write this in as a link?)